NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 16, 2000

• 1118

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being so patient as to wait on the chair. It was all the clerk's fault. She forgot to wake him up.

I thank you very much for being here punctually this morning. I thank, as well, members from the department, whom we have met before: Madame Beauchamp, Mr. Worona, Monsieur Blanchard, and Mr. Seaman.

I think we want to have Mr. Aubre, from the justice department, sitting at the table too, if it's not a problem for anybody else, just so that we see him. I think we wanted to beat up on somebody.

Colleagues who were here last week as we were going into consideration will remember Mr. Aubre as being from Justice. He was asked questions on some of the wording. I asked him to join us again today so that if we had some questions regarding wording, he'd be there as a resource.

In my view, that's what members of the departmental staff are here to do. So if we need anything of them, please direct your questions here.

I have a question from Mr. St-Julien before we begin.

• 1120

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was in Val-d'Or yesterday and I tried, unsuccessfully, to consult the Internet in order to obtain the minutes of the last committee meeting in order to find out what took place in my absence. I would like to know whether the officials tabled any amendments.

The Chair: Are the minutes of the meeting already on the Internet?

The Clerk: No.

The Chair: Not yet?

The Clerk: No, we send what we refer to as the blues to the members' offices.

The Chair: Is that the same thing?

The Clerk: No, the blues are the transcript of the floor. We always e-mail this document to the members in the afternoon, or the next day, even if the meeting is held in the morning.

The Chair: I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary if she intends to table some amendments. She is shaking her head no. There is your answer, Mr. St-Julien.

[English]

Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question has to do with the amendments that we were given just now. This is the first I've seen them, and I was wondering, what is the procedure? I find it difficult to deal with these without having had the opportunity to study them in advance. Does this mean we delay the clause-by-clause until we have had a chance to review these? Quite frankly, some of these could be substantive. I don't know. Maybe they're not. Maybe they're just technical.

In any event, I don't know that, and as a consequence, I find it extremely difficult. In fact, I think it's not responsible on my part to vote on something like this when I haven't even had the opportunity to study it in any detail. So I think we should have had these at least one day before, and perhaps longer than that.

The Chair: Mr. Schmidt, thank you. It's a valid point, to an extent.

I think Mr. Martin's proposed amendments were distributed yesterday. I'm not sure that means everybody had an opportunity to study them in depth.

As for some of the ones from Madame Guay, I wasn't asked for some authorization to do that.

But in fairness to them both, through the process we go through, we'll probably have ample opportunity to discuss each one of them. Some of the issues they address were touched upon in the presentations that were submitted to the committee. Secondly, with departmental officials here, I think we'll have an opportunity to bounce back one more time what they mean, at least in the context of the draft legislation.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I respect what you're saying, and I think that's quite legitimate. On the other hand, I'm sure you know as well as I do that past experience indicates that sometimes on the spur of the moment you haven't the opportunity to think through all the issues.

Also, I'd like the opportunity to consult with at least my colleague on some of these issues so that I could have the wisdom of his input, because this is really his portfolio, and he knows it much better than I do. I'd certainly want the advantage of doing that, and this just doesn't give us that kind of opportunity.

The Chair: I hope to give you the opportunity during the course of this—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Can he and I recess, then, from time to time?

The Chair: Sure, but we'll carry on without you.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: But that's the point. That's kind of funny, in a way, but really it's not funny at all. What you're really doing is making it very difficult for me to exercise my parliamentary responsibilities.

The Chair: Werner, I was doing it in a collegial way, so please don't take any personal offence.

I don't want to encumber any of the exercises that you engage in to carry out your parliamentary responsibilities. I think the members on the government side are probably facing a similar situation.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: We want to get this thing together, you see.

The Chair: No, they're very focused.

[Translation]

Ms. Guay.

• 1125

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to say that the tabled amendments will be explained, one by one, by the members who submitted them. I think that we now have enough experience as members to be able to decide whether an amendment is relevant. If we require more detailed explanations, we will take more time. That's all.

[English]

The Chair: There's somebody who has a lot of confidence in your abilities, Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): I would also like to speak against any kind of delay.

First of all, it isn't unusual for motions to be made right at the committee during the clause-by-clause process, and there would be no advance warning then. The committee then deals with each issue on its merit.

So I don't think there's anything unusual about seeing these amendments for the first time today, and given that we've been trying to get this bill passed for 10 or 12 years, I think it would be in everybody's best interest if we moved forward expeditiously today.

The Chair: I thank you very much.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, as you know, these amendments had to be with the clerk by Friday. We asked for them yesterday and were told that there had been no authorization by the movers to make these amendments available.

While I agree with Mr. Martin that if an amendment were to come on the floor, we would certainly deal with it, that would be maybe one or two amendments. Here we're dealing with 39 amendments that have been with the clerk for a couple of days, at least over the weekend, and I find it really unusual that they would not have been made available or at least authorized to be made available.

Just to question the statement you made a few minutes ago about their being distributed yesterday, they definitely were not distributed to my office, and we had asked for them.

The Chair: Mr. Johnston, I don't want to lead any colleagues down the garden path, but the issue of confidentiality of amendments proposed to any committee is still under debate by the House procedures committee, and they haven't submitted a report. There has been no decision on it. Until such event, I think we're still obligated to each other to maintain the confidentiality that is associated with presenting amendments. So if a colleague is to present an amendment....

I asked how many amendments had been proposed, and the clerk said to me, “Mr. Volpe, I can give you a general sense that we have some or we don't have any, but these things are in confidence with members of the committee and we are to respect each other's confidence.” So I said, “Okay, that's fine.”

I'm sorry I can't give you greater comfort, Mr. Johnston, but I'm hoping that as we go along we'll be able to address some of these issues. Meanwhile, the question of confidentiality and distribution is still in the hands of a committee that is other than this one.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I want to make it clear that I have no intention of delaying the committee. I'd like to see this bill dealt with as rapidly as possible.

What I'm saying is, if we had had these in our hands with some time to go over them and study them, we probably could have.... The way it is now, I see a lot of questions I'm going to have to ask about each amendment. It may in fact cause the process to go slower than it did. It's certainly no intention of mine to clog up the process just to clog up the process, but I want to make sure I understand each of these amendments as they go.

The Chair: The point is taken. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, I propose to begin.

I want to advise everyone that I spoke to at least our whip, and I asked him to speak to others as well, that in the event of votes in the House, especially taking on from what Mr. Johnston has indicated, I'm prepared to sit here through them, and he's comfortable with that situation as well, as I think maybe your whips on the opposition side may be. All we have to do is give them notice that we're still here so you'll be paired off.

I propose to go right through the lunch period. I've ordered lunch so that we can have a bite to eat. We'll sit here for as long as it takes to get this bill through, or at least for us to do our job on this matter.

• 1130

I know everybody will want to address every item at length. I will ask you, if you have comments on each one of these amendments—we've discussed this at great length—to stay within a minute.

[Translation]

Ms. Guay and Mr. Martin, you will agree that each intervention will last no longer than one minute because these are all things that have already been discussed, right? Do you agree, Ms. Guay?

Ms. Monique Guay: I am in agreement providing that we have understood the nature of the amendment properly. If that isn't the case, we will have to discuss the matter further. I would not want someone to say that the minute is up, that it is all over and done with and that we are going to move on to something else.

The Chair: My remarks are intended primarily for you and Mr. Martin.

Ms. Monique Guay: Yes.

The Chair: These are amendments that you have both suggested. I invited the departmental officials so that they can give us clarifications.

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the work of the committee unduly.

The Chair: Fine.

Ms. Monique Guay: We simply want to be able to explain the amendments properly and to answer questions.

The Chair: Fine.

[English]

I understand, but I want to make a distinction between taking philosophical positions and taking positions of clarity. That's all. So as long as the ground rules are known right off the bat, we shouldn't have any trouble.

I must say I've appreciated, up to this point at least, the kind of cooperation, including what Mr. Johnston said with respect to intentions about asking questions and carrying on.

(On clause 1)

The Chair: I think you have the package in front of you. The NDP want Bill C-2 in clause 2 to be amended by replacing lines 17 to 23 on page 2 with the following.... I will not read it.

Yes, Mrs. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Are we not going to deal with them clause by clause, and if there are no amendments to clause 1, can we put it on the table?

The Chair: Yes, we could do that.

I'm sorry, we're not at clause 2 yet, so let's go to clause 1.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually I'm not going to move this amendment I've put before you here. I'd like to move an alternate motion that we delete the definition of health altogether.

So I move that we delete lines 17 to 23 of clause 2 on page 2.

The Chair: Is that okay? It's better to have no definition than a bad one.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: We accept that, Mr. Chair. That will leave the courts to make a determination on a case-by-case basis.

(Amendment agreed to)

Mr. Werner Schmidt: There's another amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Monique.

• 1135

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, I had understood that it was moved that lines 17 to 23 be deleted.

The Chair: Yes, that is right.

Ms. Monique Guay: Can we read the amended clause?

[English]

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly the point. We have an amendment on page 1 and then we have another amendment on page 2 referring to two different lines. So are you withdrawing both of those?

The Chair: Mr. Martin has withdrawn his, simply because he doesn't want to have that particular definition. He has taken away lines 17 to 23, leaving out that definition. For those of you who were here, the definition of health created some controversy, so I gather Mr. Martin is saying that this will allow for the elimination of some of that controversy.

Madame Guay has an amendment proposed for lines 20 and 21 on page 1, which would be captured, I guess, by Mr. Martin's. So Madame Guay, before we call for that other vote, do you feel comfortable with Mr. Martin's proposal to withdraw yours as well?

Ms. Monique Guay: No.

The Chair: So you want yours in. So before I go to Mr. Martin's vote....

Ms. Monique Guay: We have to finish his first.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: We voted on Mr. Martin's and that section was deleted. Therefore the section the member from the Bloc wants to amend is no longer there. It does not exist.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Does this mean that our amendment is automatically defeated because you agreed to Mr. Martin's amendment?

[English]

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with the parliamentary secretary.

The Chair: All right. I'm sorry. Mr. Martin's is different from Madame Guay's. If you take a look at part 1, it's subclause 2(3), the definition of danger. That's where she is. Mr. Martin's only dealt with the definition of health.

You'll notice down at the bottom of the page, Mr. Schmidt—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's my point exactly. That's why I disagreed with what your parliamentary secretary said.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I stand corrected, I apologize.

The Chair: That's why I said I just wanted to clarify some procedural stuff. It's cleared up. Okay. We will go to Madame Guay's motion before we go on to ask for the other.

Madame Guay's motion is that clause 2 be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 1 with the following:

to cause injury or illness to a person exposed to it, including a woman who is pregnant or nursing and to the foetus of a pregnant woman, before the hazard or condition can be

and by replacing line 25 on page 1—and I won't read that.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, since you have agreed to delete lines 17 to 23, my amendment is no longer valid because you have withdrawn the definition of health. In doing this, you have quashed my amendment.

The Chair: No, I did not quash anything.

Ms. Monique Guay: My amendment pertained to lines 20 and 21, which were deleted. I moved that we add:

to cause injury or illness to a person exposed to it, including a woman who is pregnant or nursing and to the foetus of a pregnant woman, before the hazard or condition can be

• 1140

It's complicated. I should have asked that we vote on my amendment before voting on my colleague's. You have taken note of this, Mr. Chairman. We are moving this amendment to ensure that we are able to include the notion of a pregnant or nursing woman in this section of the bill.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Those are the only two amendments to clause 2.

Ms. Monique Guay: There's another one.

The Chair: Where?

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: We are moving an amendment to the same paragraph, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: The second part of her amendment is to replace line 25 on page 1 with the following:

or activity and includes any exposure to working conditions that are likely to be dangerous to nursing mothers and any exposure to a

Mr. Pat Martin: Do we need a separate motion? I though we voted on it.

The Chair: You voted on (a). Let's vote on (b).

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5)

The Chair: I have a couple of amendments on clause 5. Let's deal with the first one. It's the NDP motion. You have it on page 6.

He moves that Bill C-12 in clause 5 be amended by replacing line 42 on page 6 with the following:

“safety representatives receive 120 hours of pre-”

Mr. Pat Martin: May I speak to the amendment?

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, this motion seeks to amend the act to point out how much health and safety training should be received by the health and safety representatives. In clause 5, proposed paragraph 125(1)(z.01) states clearly that safety representatives should receive the prescribed training, but it doesn't say how much training these health and safety representatives should receive.

In cooperation with labour and management, people agreed that 120 hours of training would be a reasonable amount, so the representatives on the committee have some base of information, some common standard of skill and prerequisite training. The 120 hours has been agreed to by labour and management. That's my understanding.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I would like to know why the departmental officials chose this number of hours of training. Does the Canada Labour Code already stipulate the number of hours deemed normal?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard (Director General, Operations, Labour, Department of Human Resources Development Canada): We did not establish the time period of 120 hours. This was an addition moved by Mr. Martin.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Yes, but in your opinion, how many hours of health and safety training should be routinely provided?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: We did not set a time limit. The duration of the training may vary according to the type of course given. Some training courses last one week, others one month or two months.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Does the duration depend on the type of company involved?

• 1145

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: No, the duration varies according to the nature of the training. For instance, training in a complex and technical sector will last longer. Our department provides its clients with courses of varying length. It is the responsibility of the clients to identify the courses that will meet their needs. We have not established a formula requiring that so many hours be provided for a particular type of training.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Training consisting of one, two or three hours may be adequate. Our colleague is suggesting that we specify 120 hours. Based on your experience here in Canada, how long does such training normally last?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: I cannot say that there is a normal length of time because we have to look at the characteristics of a given type of training.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: All right, thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Longfield.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: With all due respect, I don't think this is something that has been thoroughly discussed with all parties. I tend to believe this is overly prescriptive and probably should be left to the regulatory process, the review.

The Chair: I call the vote on the NDP amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Amendment NDP-3 reads:

That Bill C-12, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 9 the following....

Mr. Martin, do you want to tell us why you want to add that?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, I will, thank you.

This motion seeks to amend Bill C-12 to recognize that one of the things that's been absent in the act is a recognition of special measures that need to be taken to look after the health and safety of workers who work alone. There are many factors here—personal safety, risk of violence, etc. I don't have to go into detail about why this needs special circumstances, but there's a growing recognition that workers who work alone have special needs and that the people who are subject to the provisions of this act should be bound to make special provisions to recognize the unique nature of that work.

This is very important to the labour community. It's one of the things they would very much like recognized. This isn't amending any particular language in the bill now. It actually creates a new paragraph altogether.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Again, there are provisions within the act to protect these workers. It's not a consensus item, Mr. Chair. There's already adequate protection there.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Could I ask the officials if they anticipate anything in regulations that might serve to allay Mr. Martin's concerns?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: Some work will be going on, after the passage of this bill, in prevention of violence. It could be dealt with there. I can't anticipate exactly what position all parties will take. It could be dealt with in that area.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: Do any provisions of the bill cover self- employed workers?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: Like all other workers, a self-employed worker is entitled to refuse work and he can invoke various sections of the Code which apply, either I, II or III. He can also file a complaint if he feels that he has been aggrieved. He benefits from all of the rights stipulated in the Code for the protection of workers.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If we are going to deal with it in the regulations, I don't see why there would be any reluctance to have it contemplated in the legislation. It would give comfort to those parties who very much want it dealt with quickly in the regulation. This would give the authority and the guidance to act quickly and get the regulation up and running.

• 1150

So I would appeal to the other members to recognize this isn't a threatening paragraph in any sense that it's a cost factor to the employers. It addresses something of great interest and great urgency in the labour community at least. So I'd ask for that latitude to add this language to give direction and to act as an enabling paragraph so that the regulation might be dealt with promptly.

The Chair: Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we might get an opinion from the legal person on our panel today as to what the significance of adding this amendment to the act would be.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I would like Mr. Martin to explain what he means by special provisions.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, I think, through the chair, that would vary from workplace to workplace. In the armoured car industry, for example—Loomis or Brink's or these people who carry money—it may mean that to recognize the hazards of that particular job, those workers should have a special system in their truck to alert if there's an emergency. There should be a panic button put in place. Things of that nature we want to see dealt with on a job-by-job and industry-by-industry basis.

It would deal with working alone, for instance, in a factory. In a steel rolling mill, we just had a recent accident in Selkirk, Manitoba, a terrible accident, where both of a worker's arms were cut off by a press. He was working alone, so he lay there and was bleeding to death slowly over the course of an hour and a half. Had he not been working alone, the guy would be alive today. So maybe there should be rules put in place in that workplace that every fifteen minutes somebody comes around and checks on a person working alone with dangerous machinery.

Those are the types of provisions that should be mandated in every workplace. In a place where there's a collective agreement or a union health and safety committee and representation, probably those measures are taken. But we have to consider other workplaces where they don't have the advantage of the protective umbrella of an active and practising health and safety committee.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, I'd like to ask Mr. Aubre if he would address Mr. Johnston's question, and I think indirectly that would probably answer Mr. St-Julien's question as well.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Aubre (Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Human Resources Development): Mr. Chairman, from my perspective, the situation of an employee working alone is amply covered in the code as it is. I draw your attention to the definition of workplace, which reads, “any place where an employee is engaged in work for the employee's employer”. The whole of the code is covered to apply to any type of workplace. So in that respect, any of the protections afforded to a group of employees are also afforded to a single employee anywhere in the code.

The Chair: Thank you, sir.

Okay, we'll go to the vote on amendment NDP-3.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 8)

The Chair: We have an amendment to clause 8. I wonder who it's from.

Amendment NDP-4 refers to clause 8 on page 12. It's that Bill C-12 in clause 8 be amended by replacing...

[Translation]

line 15 on page 12 with the following:

circumstance in the workplace that constitutes a contravention of this Act or is likely

[English]

That's the French part.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: There's actually another motion I'd like to make regarding clause 8.

The Chair: We're now dealing with this one.

Mr. Pat Martin: We're dealing with this one first?

The Chair: Yes, if you don't mind.

• 1155

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay. They are related.

The current language in proposed paragraph 126(1)(g) currently reads:

report to the employer any thing or circumstance in a work place that is likely to be hazardous

We believe that inserting the words “circumstances in a work place that constitute a contravention of this Act” is better language in that if you do have the obligation to report things to the employer—and I should tell you we call this the “rat” clause, because it obligates workers to rat each other out—then at least that which you are bringing to the attention of the employer should be a contravention of the act, not just the opinion of one worker that it's hazardous.

We all have an obligation to keep a clean, safe, and healthy workplace, and I think workers willingly engage in this. But where this clause, we feel, goes too far is that there's a burden on the employee, in fact a burden that's subject to discipline, that they have to report their fellow workers. If they're going to have to do that, we want to make sure that what they're reporting really does constitute a contravention of the act.

The Chair: Let me understand this, Mr. Martin. You want the worker to make the judgment that this thing in fact constitutes a contravention before making the report. Is that what you've said?

Mr. Pat Martin: We don't want a bunch of people reporting each other on issues that clearly aren't a contravention of the act and don't require the action of the employer to alter it. We don't want to stimulate some flurry of people ratting each other out for any number of reasons.

The Chair: Okay.

Madam Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Actually, this amendment would require employees to rat on themselves, to report on themselves, which is really a violation of the Charter of Rights. It's self-incrimination. It's not something that we can accept.

The Chair: This is a heavy morning.

Mr. Aubre.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Aubre: On the reporting of violations, contraventions, the language here that says to report on all contraventions includes reporting on one's own contraventions. We've obtained legal advice from the charter section of the Department of Justice, and that would constitute self-incrimination. Since such a violation is susceptible to prosecution under another section of the act, potentially for a fine, and if we proceed to indictment, for imprisonment, that constitutes self-incrimination in violation of the charter.

The Chair: Okay. Those in favour of the NDP—

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

The Chair: Why not?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Great. I'm glad to see you have a good attitude.

I guess what I'm asking is, is it necessary, under Mr. Martin's amendment, for every employee to be very familiar with the act and what constitutes a contravention? In the act, as it's written now, is it not the objective that an employee may report any hazardous practice that's happening to the employer with the intention that—

The Chair: Or perceived.

Mr. Dale Johnston: —or what that employee perceives is a hazardous practice—with the view to getting it changed? It's not so much to discipline anybody, but to make the workplace ultimately safer. That's the way I read it, at least. I think placing the onus on the employee to decide what constitutes a contravention of this act is a bit onerous.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Pat Martin: I have one more point I'd like to make, if I could add one more point just before we vote on that.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Pat Martin: The language we seek to introduce into proposed paragraph 126(1)(g) is actually taken from proposed paragraph 126(1)(j), where the obligation is to report to the employer any situation the employee believes to be a contravention of this part of the act by the employer. The language would be matching, then, in proposed paragraphs 126(1)(g) and 126(1)(j).

The Chair: Mr. Martin, just a second. You're going a little too fast for the chair. You brought me to proposed paragraph 126(1)(j).

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes. I would like to point out that the change we seek to make in proposed paragraph 126(1)(g) is in fact already in place in proposed paragraph 126(1)(j). The language that says if the employee believes it to be a contravention of this part of the act is exactly the same type of language we want to see in proposed paragraph 126(1)(g), and we believe it adds a further safeguard to the employee, given the obligations they're introducing there.

• 1200

The Chair: Okay, I have a view on that, but I'm just the chair. So I'm going to ask for Mr. Aubre to give me a clarification there.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Aubre: Under proposed paragraph 126(1)(g)—

The Chair: Isn't that the same language: “believing” and “constituting”?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Aubre: I'm a bit stifled by the distinction, if I may say. Under proposed paragraph 126(1)(j) as it is in the bill, if I may go back to that, the obligation is to report to the employer any situation that the employee believes to be a contravention of this part....

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Aubre: It's a personal belief. That's all it is. Under proposed paragraph 126(1)(j), we're not talking about contraventions of the act, we're talking about any thing or circumstance in a workplace that is likely to be hazardous to the health or safety of the employee, or other employees.

There's a clear distinction in the wording. I'm not sure that what is being proposed as an amendment—using “constitutes”—makes any difference whatsoever. I'd like to point out also that the purpose of having these two clauses separated was basically just because of the charter problem, and the fact that under proposed paragraph 126(1)(j), contraventions are considered to be something other than hazardous situations.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm sorry, I have a further amendment to clause 8, which I notified you about.

The Chair: I'm sorry. All right.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'd like to introduce a motion here.

The Chair: I thought that's the one you were dealing with, but I asked you to deal with that one first. Go ahead.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, you asked me to deal with it first.

I have a second motion to make regarding clause 8, and that is to delete proposed paragraph 126(1)(k), the final bracketed paragraph.

The Chair: Is that on page 12?

Mr. Pat Martin: It's on page 12, lines 33 to 35.

The Chair: The one that reads:

take all of the prescribed medical examinations, X-rays and tests, other than drug tests, at the prescribed time and place.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's correct.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

That corresponds to lines 35 to 39 inclusively on page 12 of the French version. Is that all right, Ms. Guay?

Ms. Monique Guay: Yes, that is fine.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin, do you want to tell us why you want to delete it?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, if I could speak to that. We seek to amend Bill C-12 by taking away proposed paragraph 126(1)(k) for the simple reason that we believe mandatory tests are illegal under human rights law and international practice. Ontario has changed its law in this direction. Ontario's subsection 28(3) reads that:

28.(3) A worker is not required to participate in a prescribed medical surveillance program unless the worker consents to do so.

So we believe this section violates the ILO's technical and ethical guidelines for worker health surveillance. We believe it has no place, especially in such firm and binding language as they've chosen, in part II of the Canada Labour Code.

The Chair: Okay, maybe the parliamentary secretary might have something to say there. Can I ask Mr. Aubre to pronounce himself on the question of the human rights legislation, the Charter of Rights legislation and other legislation?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Aubre: Okay.

Proposed paragraph 126(1)(k) is an employee obligation. Normally for an obligation to be against the charter, there has to be a penalty attached. In this particular instance, there's a specific law at proposed subsection 148(6) that says you cannot be penalized for refusing to take the medical test.

The Chair: So it's a good thing to have a law as long as there's no consequence.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Aubre: There's no penal consequence. I mean, there may be—-

Mr. Pat Martin: There's discipline in the workplace.

• 1205

Mr. Jean-Pierre Aubre: You can't be disciplined for exercising a right. And here, you can't be prosecuted. There may be internal measures or administrative measures through a safety officer possibly. But as far as being in violation of human rights or charter law is concerned, it's not.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Aubre.

Madam Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Chair, we're prepared to accept this amendment. We agree with Mr. Martin, but if we do that, it would also require the deletion of proposed subsection 148(6) on page 51, lines 9 and 10.

The Chair: All right. Thank you. Let me deal with Mr. Martin's motion first and then we'll go to Mrs. Longfield's.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

The Chair: I'll deal with Madam Longfield's amendment, which is to delete proposed subsection 148(6), lines 9 and 10 on page 51.

Mr. Pat Martin: Could I speak to that for a moment, please? The only issue I'd like to raise is that it is also necessary to delete a further clause if we are bouncing ahead, which is proposed subsection 139(1) on page 38. It's along the same vein.

Will we be allowed to deal with that when we finish with the parliamentary secretary's amendment?

The Chair: Let me deal with Madam Longfield's amendment right now, because Madam Longfield's amendment deals directly with the one we've just agreed to right now. So I'd prefer to get that one out of the way even though it's coming down a little later on. Okay?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: It was unanimous. I'm glad to hear that.

I'm just going to deal with clause 8.

Mr. Dale Johnston: How did we deal with Mr. Martin's claim that we need to delete also proposed subsection 139(1)?

The Chair: We haven't dealt with that one yet. I just want to get rid of this clause, please.

Mr. Dale Johnston: All right.

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: For the sake of just cleaning that one up very quickly, jumping ahead and going to Mrs. Longfield's amendment, we've already accepted her amendment to delete proposed subsection 148(6) on page 51.

Mr. Martin claims that proposed subsection 139(1) on page 38 is a consequential subsection we should deal with, given the two we have already dealt with. So because we're still on this same issue, let me deal with it right now so we don't have to come back to it again.

• 1210

What Mr. Martin proposes, I gather—Mr. Martin, I'll let you speak for yourself—is the deletion of that entire paragraph, lines 25 to 33. Is that what you propose?

Mr. Pat Martin: That's correct.

The Chair: The clerk has some advice for all of us. We could deal with it now, but perhaps, Pat, if you don't mind, given that we have a substantial number of amendments on clause 14, maybe you'd want to deal with it then. Is that fair enough?

Mr. Pat Martin: Sure.

The Chair: All right. So we're finished with clause 8.

(Clause 9 agreed to)

(On clause 10)

The Chair: We have a couple of amendments.

Amendment NDP-5 deals with clause 10, page 21, and says that Bill C-12, in clause 10, be amended by adding, after line 34 on page 21, the following:

(3.1) For greater certainty, once a risk to the health of the employee or of the foetus or child is established, the provisions of Division VII of Part III of this Act shall apply.

Mr. Martin, are you still in consultation or did you want to just let me ask the question?

Mr. Pat Martin: I would rather have the opportunity to comment first, before you ask the question.

The Chair: Do you want to do that before or after you consult?

Mr. Pat Martin: I've finished consulting, Mr. Chair, thank you.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, first of all we'd like to compliment the drafters of this clause. We believe that the section on pregnant and nursing mothers is a very progressive thing. It recognizes the reality in the workplace.

We are concerned, though, that additional clarification is needed as to what the avenues of recourse are for the pregnant or nursing mother who seeks reassignment.

Part III of the code does deal with the reassignment in the workplace for workers under this category, so we believe it would do no harm and would help future generations who are trying to make sense of this code to add, for further clarification, in simple language, that once it is established that there is a risk to the health of the pregnant or nursing mother, or to the fetus or child, division VII of part III of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with reassignment, maternity leave and paternity leave, maternity-related reassignment and leave, shall apply. It gives guidance to people who need to interpret this act later on. It simply adds clarification to what we believe is the intent of the clause anyway.

So with that, I would hope we would have the support for what we think are those reasonable arguments.

The Chair: Madam Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I don't have any problem as far as it goes. Unfortunately, what it does do by cross-referencing is to put the public service under part III, which it isn't, and it goes beyond the scope of the bill. So it's....

The Chair: I gather your position is negative.

[Translation]

Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the proposed clause 132 is a key clause in the bill because it gives us an opportunity to improve the situation of pregnant or nursing women. I would simply like to remind you about the testimony that we heard.

There is no unanimity with respect to clause 132. It was recommended that we suggest amendments and invite the officials to continue giving some thought to the matter. This has not yet been completed, and therefore I will reserve the right to intervene later with respect to this clause.

• 1215

All of the witnesses have told us that the bill does not go far enough and that the federal government should, through this bill, take the initiative to provide protection for pregnant or nursing women. This is not, however, what this bill does right now. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, we should agree to any positive amendment that has been submitted.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I support this amendment, Mr. Chairman. We already considered this issue in 1991, and in the course of studying several other bills beforehand. We have to go further.

I am surprised that the officials did not present any amendments to proposed clause 132 this morning, although I do acknowledge that they have had very little time to think about this issue over the weekend. An amendment such as this one which will help pregnant women would be particularly beneficial to the provinces other than Quebec, which has already made great inroads. I had understood that the workers in certain provinces do not enjoy the same benefits as their counterparts in Quebec.

I found some of my notes that go back to 1990, and which deal with motions and petitions to respect the rights of the pregnant woman at work. We have to go further and find solutions. Today, we parliamentarians have an opportunity to promote this issue. We have to take action today, and not in five or 10 years. Moreover, we may not be here at that time. I was absent from the House of Commons for four years. I think that we have an opportunity, this week, to find solutions that will enable us to make progress.

The Chair: You are, therefore, in favour of this amendment.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Yes.

The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment...

[English]

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I am asking for one more intervention, if you don't mind.

The Chair: Well, I do mind.

[Translation]

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Monique Guay: This is very important.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: I didn't use up my whole one minute in my opening remarks.

The Chair: No, Madame Guay did it for you.

Go ahead, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

Maybe if it is generally agreed that the subclause has merit and that adding further clarification is a good thing, I would ask if, working with the officials who are here, there's a way to move a friendly amendment to the amendment that would make reference to perhaps comparable provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act as well as division VII, part III of the Canada Labour Code, so that public service employees would have the same guidance as we seek to offer other people subject to the code.

The Chair: Let me understand this. You want to move a friendly amendment to your amendment?

Mr. Pat Martin: I would ask that those present would move a friendly amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Aubre, what complications have you noticed in your deliberations?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Aubre: Well....

The Chair: None...? Okay.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Aubre: Well, I wish I could say that, but basically I would come back again to saying that the amendment as is brings the public service under the coverage of part III.

Secondly, as far as the scope of this bill goes, it can only go as far as what cabinet said we could do. There is full coverage proposed for any side of the situation under part II for the pre-medical certificate. Beyond that, it goes beyond the scope of cabinet authorization.

The Chair: Okay. Everybody has had their say. I'm going to go back to where I was a moment ago.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Let's go on to the next amendment proposed under this clause. That's proposed by Madame Guay.

[Translation]

She is moving that Bill C-12, clause 10, be amended by deleting lines 25 to 29, page 25, and not 25 to 28. Is that correct?

[English]

Am I right?

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: No, up to line 28.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Sorry.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Do not confuse us, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. In the English part, it's lines 25 to 28, proposed subsection 135(2), on page 25:

An employer is not required to establish a committee under subsection (1) for a work place that is not on board a ship in respect of employees whose base is the ship.

Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, I do not see why this bill should not cover people working on ships since they are employees like the others.

• 1220

This reminds me of Minister Martin's Bill C-28, which protected the entire marine fleet. I do not understand why we would not be affording equal protection to all employees.

I am, therefore, moving that we strike this paragraph so that everyone is covered by Part II of the Canada Labour Code.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: It's not something that we can support, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I would like to hear what the officials have to say about this issue. When you talk about employees on a ship, are you talking about Canadian ships or ships from other countries?

Ms. Monique Guay: Our ships.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Yes, but that does not matter. I want to go further.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Aubre, I said you were going to be under the gun here all the time. I'm interested in the legal.... Everybody is silent, waiting for you to speak. Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: At home, we call them boats.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Aubre: This pertains only to Canadian ships.

Ms. Monique Guay: Why can't all these employees be protected by Canadian legislation like all the others?

[English]

The Chair: Madame Guay, it's okay. I think he heard that one first.

Ms. Monique Guay: Oui?

The Chair: I was waiting for him to give us the answer as to why this subclause would be there or not there. He was going to give us an answer, a legal answer.

He doesn't want to give us a legal answer. Monsieur Blanchard.

Mr. Rick Seaman (Program Consultant, Occupational Safety and Health and Fire Prevention, Operations, Department of Human Resources Development): Mr. Chairman, the advice we received from—

The Chair: Oh, Mr. Seaman, I'm sorry.

Mr. Rick Seaman: That's okay.

The advice we received from Transport Canada when we explored this option.... This, by the way, is reflective of the current code, the 1983-86 version. The problem with regard to ships is that it's not uncommon to have several crew changes over the course of a week. There is a constant change of crews. The crew is assigned to different ships as soon as they come off duty, and they sail out with another ship.

I guess you could say it's similar to air crews on planes, where you're trying to set up the concept of establishing a health and safety committee on a plane when the crews are constantly changing.

The way it's currently set up, there's a safety and health representative on that ship. There is an employee responsible for safety and health as a representative, but to have a committee would not be workable, because this weekly, constant change of employees results in a constant change of committee members.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: We are talking about Canadian ships, but some Canadian ships fly under European or other foreign flags.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Aubre: Mr. Chairman, a Canadian ship is one that is flying under a Canadian flag. If it is flying under a flag from another country, it is not a Canadian ship, although it may be Canadian property. It is the flag that determines the nationality.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: It has to be flying under a Canadian flag.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Aubre: Yes.

The Chair: Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly going to defend my opinion. I do not see why we should discriminate and why employees working on ships are not protected even though they often change ships and there is a turnover of employees. Everyone should be treated equally. The same thing applies for those working on board planes. They should benefit from the same protection as others. The fact that they work on board planes and change planes daily does not mean that they should not be protected. A health committee cannot be established in a plane.

I do not see why we have come up with a specific paragraph to exclude employees based on ships. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that everyone is treated equally. We are therefore moving that we strike these three lines from the bill. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Last word, Madam Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: It's not that we don't want to protect. It's just unworkable. We can't have something taken out that we can't enforce and can't do. They're not there long enough to establish the committee. By exempting, it would force them to do something they can't do.

(Amendment negatived)

• 1225

The Chair: Next is the third Bloc amendment on clause 10,

[Translation]

It is moved that bill C-12, in clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 25 with the following:

(3) On receipt of a joint request from the parties that is submitted in the form and manner [...]

and by replacing line 38 on page 25 with the following:

order, exempt them from the require-

Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: It is not a major amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I feel it's important: "On receipt of a joint request from the parties... the Minister may". The bill referred only to employers, whereas in my amendment, it refers to employers and employees in order that this may be done jointly in the form and manner prescribed. If this part of the bill is changed, "the employer" becomes "them". We're talking about joint parties. That's all it is. This amendment seeks to include the role of employees in all this, so that this is not a one-way street but done in consultation.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: [Editor's note: Inaudible]

[English]

The Chair: Madam Longfield, would you prefer to have either Mr. Blanchard or Mr. Seaman respond to that?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes. Part of the problem is that I'm working blind, not having seen the amendments before, and I would be much more comfortable with the officials from the department on this.

The Chair: And a happy day it is to have them here.

Mr. Seaman, is it your turn, or Mr. Blanchard?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: There are two elements that have to be considered.

One, there is no committee that has been established, so it's who is going to make the application for whom, for example, among the employees.

The onus to have a committee, if it's not exempted, is on the employer. So if there was no exemption, then it's the employer that would be subject to penalization for not having a committee. That's the reason it's structured this way.

In actual practice, whenever we receive an exemption, we do ask the employees or the organization that represents the employees. We review the records of the company, and we get an opinion from people to make sure there's nobody against it. But in actual practice, we didn't put it in the law because the onus to have and to comply with having a committee lies with the employer.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I think the whole basic principle of workplace safety and health committees is one of employer-employee cooperation, and it has been a real model right across the country in every industry sector. In many cases, it has been the first example of employer-employee cooperation in that workplace.

So given that it's a basic tenet of workplace safety and health activity, that joint nature of the event, then I think if it's something as serious as an exemption, it should come from the employees and the employers jointly.

By way of history, we call this clause the “bank clause”, because it's the banks that wanted to be exempt from having workplace safety and health committees. They say, what's dangerous about pushing paper in a bank?

Well, I'll tell you, there are all kinds of workplace safety and health issues associated with clerical work, from air quality to carpal tunnel disease, to, I don't know, paper cuts on your tongue. Any of those things are legitimate workplace safety and health issues, and I think you're catering to the bank lobby by allowing them a unilateral exemption or at least the ability to apply for an exemption to steer away from that basic tenet of joint cooperation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I think the member raised a very valid point.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Could I raise one last point, Mr. Chairman, to clarify my viewpoint? Mr. Chairman, for my part, I have one concern. Let us say that I am a minister, that I am the employer and that I make a unilateral decision. I think that doesn't make sense. I would be in a conflict of interest at that point. Therefore, I think it would be best to agree to this amendment so that there is consultation with the union or the employees and that the decision not be made unilaterally by the employer who, at that point, becomes both the decision-maker and a party to the decision. This leads to a situation where the employee is not well protected. That's all I wanted to say.

• 1230

[English]

The Chair: Madam Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: All these arguments are based on the assumption that we're talking about unionized workplaces. They're not all unionized.

(Amendment negatived)

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, I have an additional motion on that clause.

The Chair: It's not amendment NDP-6, is it?

Mr. Pat Martin: No.

The Chair: So it's something different.

Mr. Pat Martin: It's being tabled for the first time today, with your permission.

The Chair: It's coming here right now, as we speak.

Mr. Pat Martin: As we speak.

The Chair: Is it coming by fax or what?

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm going to convey it verbally.

The Chair: All right, go ahead, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you. I'd like to make a motion that we delete on page 25, lines 29 through 39, subclause 135(3).

The Chair: So it's the whole subclause.

Mr. Pat Martin: If I could speak to the motion briefly, in the absence of any amendment and with the fact that the Bloc amendment to modify this clause failed, I believe now our only recourse is to ask for the deletion of the whole subclause in that we don't believe the employer should be able to apply unilaterally to be exempted from the provisions of this clause, which is a basic necessity, which is creating a safety and health committee in their workplace.

I'd like to state again that the impetus for this clause was the lobby by the banks. This is not ma-and-pa grocery stores who are making application, but huge employers, like banks, who have thousands of employees, often hundreds in a single workplace, where we believe it is justified and valuable to have a workplace safety and health committee. If we can't get it amended as the Bloc attempted to do, I think we should all just agree not to have any reference to it at all and delete the subclause.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Martin honestly believes the minister would consider a request for an exemption by a bank. I don't think that's too likely.

There are special circumstances. I think we need to have a provision that will allow the minister to be able to exercise this under extraordinary circumstances.

Perhaps our legal counsel can go on a little more.

The Chair: Mr. Aubre.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Aubre: The gist of Mr. Martin's motion is that it's based on this request for an exemption to be unilateral, to be coming from the employer, but I would draw the chair's attention to the following provisions.

First, I would come back to what Mr. Blanchard said earlier on. When a request for an exemption is presented, we're in the presence of a lack of a committee. There is none. Therefore there is no spokesperson or spokesparties for the employees at that point in time.

Secondly, if there's a request for an exemption submitted under that provision, then it is not that the position or the situation of employees will not be taken into account by the minister, if one looks at the following clause, which is all the items that the minister must take into consideration in order to decide whether or not there is to be an exemption. I submit that it is probably not the minister in person who will go, but he will ask safety officers of the department to inquire as to the conditions of work in that particular workplace for which an exemption is being asked. Therefore, it is not simply a unilateral position of the employer that will be presented.

The Chair: Thank you.

• 1235

Mr. Dale Johnston: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: This is what happens when somebody has a bite to eat. They get more energy, right?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Whatever you say. I think this is what happens when an amendment comes to you out of the blue.

It looks to me like the amendment Mr. Martin talked about, with the exemption of the minister, if he wants that taken out, would necessitate taking out everything right down to line 23 on page 26. I see this as an appeal process, so I wonder if Mr. Martin would be more comfortable if the legislation said “the Canada Industrial Relations Board”, instead of “Minister”.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, he's put that question to me, so you might want to answer to me.

Mr. Pat Martin: I would argue that the workplaces this really contemplates dealing with are not unionized workplaces, by and large. There's no representation for the employees, no structure, no vehicle, and no avenue of recourse. So it's incumbent on us then to give voice to those who don't otherwise have any kind of voice. That's the first point.

To answer your question about subsequent clauses and any consequential impact my motion might make if it were passed, beyond proposed subsection 135(4) they start talking about workplaces where there are collective agreements, etc. I believe those would stay. It wouldn't be necessary to delete everything on pages 26 and 27, as you pointed out, where we get into duties of committees, etc.

Also, if you deleted proposed subsection 135(3), it wouldn't preclude having an employer-employee committee or a group of employers and employees going forward to the minister and still asking them to contemplate the idea of an exemption. It would take away the easy access this proposed subsection contemplates, which is unilateral—it's the bank president phoning up the minister and saying “I think workplace safety and health committees are a nuisance. I want to be exempted.” That's what we're trying to preclude.

The Chair: Thank you.

Does that answer your question, Mr. Johnston?

Mr. Dale Johnston: There's just the question of whether Mr. Martin would be more comfortable with that section if it referred to the CIRB rather than the minister.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: To answer the question, I would say yes. Then at least you'd be dealing with a representative panel that would have labour and management represented, and hopefully people with some knowledge and background of workplace safety and health issues.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, what we are examining is practically the same amendment I had tabled and that has just been rejected. I don't know if you want to look at it again, but what's currently being proposed is just about the same thing.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Longfield.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I would point out that it wouldn't be unilateral, in that any request for an exemption would have to be posted. Employees would have an opportunity to know what was happening and certainly to make representation.

I maintain that this should remain. If it's not done in a unilateral fashion, then I'd point to proposed subsection 135(5), where it says:

A request for an exemption must be posted in a conspicuous place or places where it is likely to come to the attention of employees, and be kept posted until the employees are informed of the minister's decision in respect of the request.

(Amendment negatived)

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Since everybody is getting up and walking around, could we take 10 minutes to go and get our plates and...

[English]

The Chair: That's a great idea.

Just a second, though. I just want to deal with the last item here under this clause. Then I will call for a vote on the clause and suspend for a few minutes.

If you'll allow me, I'd like to finish amendment NDP-6, just for the sake of cleanliness as we go through.

NDP-6 is on clause 10, page 29. It proposes that Bill C-12 in clause 10 be amended by replacing line 2 on page 29 with the following:

during regular working hours at least twelve

Currently, the line reads “at least nine,” so we're going from nine to twelve.

• 1240

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: This clause seeks to amend Bill C-12 to introduce the idea that there should be twelve meetings per year of a workplace safety and health committee. We point to other provinces such as B.C., where legislation stipulates they have monthly meetings. I'd like to talk a bit about the actual experience of workplace safety and health committees.

I think the Canada Labour Code should set the bar fairly high to act as a standard. It should not go to the lowest common denominator, but to the highest. In my own experience, if I can tell you, there are 45,000 workplaces in Manitoba, and workplace safety and health committees are mandatory. Of those, there are 1,100 workplace safety and health committees. Of those, 110 have regular meetings and actually submit their minutes, as per the act.

We know that enforcement is sketchy at best, so we should be setting our standards fairly high. Frankly, if we say there should be nine meetings a year, you'll probably get six; if you say six, you'll probably get three. We believe we should say twelve and do our best to achieve that twelve and keep it a fairly high standard. There is no downside to having workplace safety and health committee meetings.

The Chair: Madam Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I think you could have 24, if you want to have them every two weeks. We're simply saying this is a minimum. In some workplaces it may not be possible during the month of December, for example, to convene a meeting. There are times when large numbers of employees are on holidays in summer, when it may not be convenient. We're not saying you can't have more; we're saying this is a minimum.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Pat Martin: I want to mention, Mr. Chair—

The Chair: This will be shorter than the last one.

Mr. Pat Martin: This will be very short. I'd just like to point out to the members present that the current code has twelve. Going down to nine is reducing the current requirement, and I don't believe there's any justification for it.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 10 agreed to)

The Chair: I will suspend for about two minutes so those who haven't yet had something to eat can do so. We'll be right back.

• 1243

• 1250

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise a point of order regarding clause 132 which refers to pregnant women. In 1992- 93, I received a document from officials of the federal government, which I will give to you. It is really important and I will tell you why. The key elements are: a summary of the proposed federal program and the Quebec program; the nature of the protection offered; the level of evidence; the scope of protection; duration; income replacement; cost of programs. It refers to reassigning the employee according to her salary and states that when there is no reassignment, leave is given. It provides the example of an employee who earns $26,000 a year and who cannot work because of health problems related to pregnancy.

Before the bill is referred to the House of Commons later this week, I would like all members of the committee to receive a document regarding this bill that is similar to the 1992-93 document. This would really give us the pros and cons, as well as the way things are done. It's complex. This has worked well for me during consideration of Bill C-101 in 1992-93. We had received this document from the officials of the federal government. It was a summary that clearly explained the Quebec program versus the proposed federal program.

Why didn't we get the same thing this year for Bill C-12? This would have helped us. Sometimes we criticize the government, but I will give you a copy anyway, for you and your clerk. It would be a very good thing if we could obtain this document. The lawyers and officials could provide us with this based on a $26,000 salary. The figures have changed. It is very interesting. Perhaps you could distribute a copy to all members. I am sorry that it's only in French, but I'm tabling it anyway. Thank you very much for hearing me out, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St-Julien.

[English]

I'm not going to go back to those clauses.

(On clause 11)

The Chair: Bloc Québécois amendment 4 says that clause 11 be amended by replacing line 12 on page 36 with the following:

following an open competition under the Public Service Employment Act to hold office during pleasure.

[Translation]

Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: As you can see, these amendments are nearly identical, except that they are located in various places throughout the bill. During our meetings with witnesses and even with the officials who are here, we discussed appointments made by the Minister. We sincerely believe that these appointments should not be made by the Minister, but rather through the Public Service Commission as the organization responsible for recruitment. It is not up to the Minister to make decisions about such appointments, but rather, they should be done by an expert committee that proceeds in a very rigorous manner in a public competition. We should therefore get people or experts in these fields and thus eliminate the risk that such appointments will be perceived as partisan.

Mr. Chairman, even the officials here today had mentioned that this may be badly drafted, that these could be political appointments. As you can see, where the bill refers to appointments by the Minister, I would like to see added:

following an open competition under the Public Service Employment Act to hold office during pleasure.

I think that this way, we will allow the Minister involved to keep his or her hands clean and go through the system that is already in place in the public service.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any questions?

(Amendment negatived)

• 1255

The Chair: Bloc amendment 5, which also refers to page 36, says that clause 11 be amended by replacing line 18 on page 36 with the following:

employers of those employees, and the chairperson and the others shall be designated following an open competition under the Public Service Employment Act.

Madame Guay, I guess it's consequential to that first one and that probably your intervention is the same.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: It is exactly the same thing, Mr. Chairman, but I fail to understand why the government can't vote in favour of such clarity. Essentially, by agreeing to this, Mr. Chairman, the government members would be protecting their minister, whereas right now, that's not what they are doing at all. They will allow the appointments to be made in a partisan way by a minister, and I don't think that that is what the public wants.

I am disappointed to see that the government cannot accept this amendment. We are not excluding the minister. He or she is included in this. The process would not exclude the minister at all, except that quite simply, she would have to submit to the Public Service Employment Act.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment of Madame Guay's is very much a common sense one and one we could support. I'd like to ask the departmental officials just what rationale—

The Chair: Sorry. The acoustics in this room are probably the worst of any room on the Hill. When colleagues engage in conversation over to one side, it just bounces right back up here. It's very difficult for the chair to hear. It's even worse when there are people moving cups and saucers around.

I'm sorry, Mr. Johnston. Go ahead.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Having said what I just said, I would like to ask the departmental officials to give us the rationale behind not having an open competition and leaving all of the decision-making solely in the hands of the minister.

The Chair: That would probably be a conflict of interest for them because they would be part of that competition. If you don't mind, Mr. Johnston, maybe I could get Madam Longfield to address the question.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: The department doesn't have a problem answering, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Great. That lets me off the hook.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: I can tell you how it's working. I can't tell you the reasons, necessarily.

First of all, the people who serve on these commissions are not employees. Names are put forward by each of the parties. For example, in Sydney this deals with the coal mine, so the corporation and the union put forward names, and that's where these people are appointed from.

It's not full-time. In actual fact, the people who sit on the commission presently, and ever since it was established, are people who are taking time off. It's usually the president or somebody from the United Mine Workers, the CBRT, or the union that represents the shot firers and the various positions that are there on the union side. On the management side, it's usually some of the plant managers or engineers who deal with it. Then the chair is appointed by the minister, based on a name that comes forward from both sides of someone who may know the industry and the area. That has been the case since this commission was established.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Blanchard.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, given that this clause was written specifically for DEVCO and given that the House of Commons today is finishing DEVCO forevermore, why are we trying to fine-tune a clause that is completely irrelevant and redundant now? I'm not saying this to be smart. Would there be interest on the part of the members of the committee to truly update this bill and delete proposed section 137.1 altogether? It will serve no purpose whatsoever after the votes are taken perhaps tonight that will finish DEVCO forever.

The Chair: The DEVCO bill has to come before this committee, and until it does, everything is up in the air. I don't want to prejudge what's going to happen. It's a point well taken, and I gather it's an observation you wanted to make.

Now that we've both made it, I go to the vote.

(Amendment negatived)

• 1300

The Chair: Bloc motion 6, which again refers to page 36, is that clause 11 be amended by replacing lines 19 to 21 on page 36 with the following:

(2.1) The Minister may, following an open competition under the Public Service Employment Act, appoint any person as an alternate

Madame Guay, I guess it's the same point as the last two.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's the same as the other two and, as a matter of fact, the six following amendments are in the same vein. I maintain that we are giving all the powers to the minister, whereas we should be much more open and allow other individuals to participate in this decision. I am really disappointed to see that there is no sign of open-mindedness on the part of the government here.

[English]

The Chair: I imagine you'll want to repeat that after we get to the next one. Does anybody else want to repeat the same thing?

Some hon. members: No.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Bloc motion 7, which again refers to page 36, is that clause 11 be amended by replacing lines 27 to 31 on page 36 with the following—I'm surprised, it is more or less the same:

(3) The manner of selection of the members of the Commission, including the chairperson, shall be determined in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act.

Madame Guay, would you like to exercise your right?

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, I will avail myself of my right to speak, especially with regard to the appointment of members of the Commission. Such an appointment should be made under the Public Service Employment Act. I don't understand why the government can't accept that the members of the Commission should be selected on the basis of their abilities and by competition. Once again, I reiterate my request for support for this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Longfield, are you going to pass?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: No. I'm just going to say that the people appointed are not necessarily employees. This way we can get the best we can. They're not necessarily employees, so they wouldn't be under the posting. We are opposed.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien is going to object. He's going to say that the very best do work for the public service.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: From what I can see, the government can appoint anyone to the position of member of the Commission. The same thing happens in provincial governments. This is not a matter of partisan politics. The government can appoint supporters of another political party if these individuals are competent. These appointments are a question of competence.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Bloc motion 8, which is still on clause 11,

[Translation]

It is moved that Bill C-12, in clause 11, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 36 the following:

(3.1) The term of office of the members of the Commission, including the chairperson and an alternate chairperson, shall be fixed, by regulation, by the Public Service Commission.

Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: Once again, this amendment is in the same vein, Mr. Chairman. I think that the Public Service Commission has a right to be included in these decisions. This is in keeping with the other amendments I have tabled.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Bloc motion 9,

[Translation]

We are still on clause 11, page 36. It is moved that Bill C- 12, in clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 43 to 45 on page 36 with the following:

including the chairperson and an alternate chairperson, shall be paid the remuneration that shall be fixed by the Treasury Board and subject to the

Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to clarify the clause. We are suggesting: “Shall be paid the remuneration that shall be fixed”. We're deleting “may” and are leaving: “shall be fixed by the Treasury Board” and not by the Governor in Council.

• 1305

The Chair: All right.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We go to Bloc amendment BQ-10.

[Translation]

We're still at clause 11, on page 37 this time. It is moved that Bill C-12, in clause 11, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 37 with the following

[English]

in English, of course, it's line 11, with the following:

Minister for cause on the recommendation of such committee of the House of Commons as may be established or designated by that House to consider matters relating to human resources

[Translation]

Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, if a sitting member of the Commission is removed, it is probably because something serious, important or exceptional has happened. Thus, in such a case, it is perfectly relevant for the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development to examine the issue in depth and, if necessary, present the views of the member of the Commission concerned. Perhaps certain witnesses could even shed a whole new light on this removal. It is important that the minister establish a much more transparent process. I don't think we should be acting in a unilateral and perhaps even arbitrary way. On the contrary, we must find the right process to let anyone see exactly what happened so that action can be taken accordingly.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 11 agreed to on division)

The Chair: As a personal reflection there, Madam Guay, it's an interesting suggestion for the role of the committee.

(Clause 12 agreed to)

The Chair: By the way, we are about 45 minutes away from question period, and I suggested to a couple of members who were around me while we were collecting some lunch that I wasn't sure about the procedures regarding committees sitting during question period. I don't have a problem with it, unless some of you have to ask or answer questions.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Chair, with some goodwill here, I think we can get it done. I'm in the House at 2 o'clock.

The Chair: Good for you.

(On clause 13)

The Chair: Bloc amendment BQ-11 is that clause 13—regarding proposed subsection 138(1.1)—be amended by replacing lines 1 to 4 on page 38 with the following:

(1.1) Persons appointed to those committees may be paid the remuneration fixed by the Treasury Board and, in accordance with any applica-

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out something important. According to clause 137.1(6), the Governor in Council fixes the salaries of the members of the Coal Mining Safety Commission and here, in clause 138, it says that it is up to the minister to decide whether the members of the committee can receive remuneration. In order for this to be clear and to have a much more transparent system, there should be only one way to set remuneration and this should be done by a single organization. The one we propose is the Treasury Board. We would thus remove any possibility of faulty judgment, even for the minister. We're removing any possibility of partisanship or unjustified remuneration by stating that it is not Treasury Board that looks after remuneration. That is the point of this amendment.

• 1310

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, it's difficult for me to see how Madame Guay's amendment changes things. In the original language it says “Treasury Board directives”, which implies to me that from time to time Treasury Board directives change, and Madame Guay says “remuneration fixed by the Treasury Board”. I fail to see what the difference is. Perhaps she could explain that to me.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: If you look at clause 138(1.1) as currently drafted, you will see that it reads as follows:

(1.1) At the discretion of the Minister, persons appointed to those committees may be paid the remunerations that may be fixed by the Minister...

In my amendment, I asked that Treasury Board have preset standards for this remuneration. Therefore, that would prevent the minister in place from deciding upon remuneration himself. We are proposing that remuneration be fixed by Treasury Board and that it be respected as such.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Madam Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: It's not the rate of pay that's at the discretion of the minister, it's whether the board will actually be paid. A number of members of boards are not paid. So the minister decides whether there is payment, and then payment is in accordance with Treasury Board directives.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Bloc amendment BQ-12 says that Bill C-12, in clause 13, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 38 with the following:

Part applies and may appoint, from a list of persons recommended by the Public Service Commissions, one or more

Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Once again, Mr. Chairman, this is to avoid any kind of partisanship. I'd like to read a brief sentence that I have found on the Website of the Public Service Commission of Canada. It states:

As the agency responsible for recruitment, the Public Service Commission (PSC) responds to planned and ad hoc staffing requests from federal departments through its ongoing recruitment activities...

Therefore, they are very well organized to get the people needed for the various positions we see here in the bill. I wonder why we would allow the Minister to disregard the role of the Public Service Commission of Canada. To show greater transparency, it would be to her advantage to use the Public Service Commission which has a great deal of experience and expertise and, with all due respect to the Minister, is in a better position than she is to make such choices.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Now to Bloc amendment BQ-13. We are on a roll here, Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: You are going too fast, Mr. Chairman. You're not even letting us vote on our own amendments.

[English]

The Chair: I just said you were on a roll.

[Translation]

That Bill C-12, in clause 13, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 38 with the following:

(5) The Minister shall publish the results of

Ms. Monique Guay: It's a very brief amendment. The point is simply to replace the expression "The Minister may publish" by "The Minister shall publish". Therefore, there is an obligation to do so and he can simply say that he will do so if he feels like it. He will have to do so and he must publish the results of the research referred to in paragraph (4).

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 13 agreed to on division)

• 1315

(On clause 14)

The Chair: Moving right along, clause 14, Bloc motion number—

Mrs. Judi Longfield: This might be the place to consider Mr. Martin's motion on proposed section 139. I think if it's coming up it would be now. We're going into clause 14 now.

The Chair: Pat, let's do that one first.

Mr. Pat Martin: If we could do that one now, I'd appreciate it. That would be great.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'd like to move a motion to amend Bill C-12 to delete proposed subsections 139(1) and 139(2) on page 38, the rationale being that earlier today we deleted proposed paragraph 126(1)(k), which dealt with mandatory medical examinations and tests, etc.

Proposed section 139 also deals with things of a similar nature. We point out again that Canada is a signatory to the ILO Technical and Ethical Guidelines for Workers' Health Surveillance. We just ratified that in 1997 in Geneva. We believe the principles of medical examinations in the workplace are that, first, they must be voluntary; second, the individual test results must be strictly confidential; third, workers have the right to choose which is the examining physician if they do voluntarily comply; and fourth, there should be no cost.

All throughout proposed subsections 139(1) and 139(2), we see that the ethical guidelines as agreed to by the ILO are not adhered to, so we would ask for cooperation in deleting proposed section 139.

The Chair: Madam Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: If this did indeed involve the testing of individuals, I would agree with Mr. Martin. However, this proposed section talks about general workplace scientific studies, perhaps a study on cancer, those types of things. It does not involve individual testing.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, you don't agree.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself.

We believe that the language is really quite clear:

The Minister may undertake medical surveillance and examination programs with respect to occupational health and safety

When the language is that clear, we don't believe that the employee is being consulted, nor would the employee have the option to withdraw or withhold from that examination. It's clearly a medical examination process.

If you are doing some kind of health study on the long-term effects of asbestos, for instance, you're going to have to test people medically. We believe it's an employee's right to not be examined. I'll also tell you why. There may be some things in a person's private medical history that they don't want to share with their employer. It might mean that the employer doesn't want you on their payroll if you have asbestosis or have even been exposed to asbestos, because you might be a liability in the future.

There are very real reasons why workers are reluctant to be examined medically against their will.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Martin.

Madam Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, there are cases where employees actually ask an employer to do a survey. This would be voluntary. There's no mandatory.... This is permissive. It doesn't force employees to partake. It doesn't force employees to take any kind of testing. Perhaps the ministry officials can give us a little more, but—

The Chair: Well, you've just said that this is permissive rather than prescriptive. If there's anything further to add to that—

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, I'd like to hear it.

The Chair: Yes, but if they have something further to add, then it's worth hearing. If not....

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: Not really. I mean...sometimes we are asked to do these things, and—

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Okay. Bloc amendment 14, for clause 14, page 39, reads that Bill C-12 in clause 14 be amended by replacing line 1 on page 39 with the following:

140.(1) The Minister may, following an open competition under the Public Service Employment Act, designate as a

• 1320

Madame Guay, exercise your right, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you have seen, throughout consideration of this bill, we have tried to ensure that the minister does not proceed with appointments but that you make use of a bank of individuals who have the required skills to provide the services needed and who are governed by the Public Service Employment Act.

Once again, I get the impression that we may be misunderstood, but I fail to see why we should allow political appointments. If we really wanted to be clear and limpid, we would use the tools already in place.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear the officials' interpretation of Section 140.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: When it refers to designation, it means choosing among the people who are there, namely the employees.

[English]

The Chair: I think this is a question that was raised during the presentations earlier on. There was a question to distinguish between appointment and designation. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Blanchard, but at the time, I think it was said that designation really meant that somebody who was already in the employment pool would be designated to do something. It was not to be mistaken for an appointment, which would be the indication of someone who may have been outside that pool of employees.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: Exactly.

The Chair: One might have been at the discretion of the minister. The other one is part and parcel of the job site. I think that's the way it was explained. We even had Mr. Aubre come in and give us the distinction between designation and nomination.

I'm sorry if you missed that, Monsieur St-Julien, but it made me feel good to say something. Thanks.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am wondering if you haven't partially answered my question, but I will ask this anyway.

The minister may designate a regional health and safety officer. Is that from the population at large, or is it some people from each side, whether it's employer and employee? From what pool of people will the minister designate the health and regional safety officer?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: It would be from federal government employees who are safety and health officers, hold a safety and health officer card, have had the training, etc.

Mr. Dale Johnston: If that's the case, then perhaps the officials can tell me why they have, or if they have, a problem with Madame Guay's amendment, which says they will be selected in an open competition under the Public Service Employment Act?

The Chair: Mr. Johnston, without engaging in a debate on it, the clerk is an example for us. I'm hoping Mr. Aubre will correct this again for me. The clerk is an example of someone who is designated. There's a pool of people who are competent to do this job. The interpreters we have are competent too, but they would never be designated to this position.

Mr. Aubre.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Aubre: This is exactly right. Basically a safety officer is designated. Once that person has been appointed to the public service, as in a classification group, the person already is an employee. Then the minister designates that person to exercise certain functions.

The Chair: Thanks.

Yes, Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, let's be clear here. When we met with the officials last week, even Mr. Blanchard said that this was open to interpretation and was not necessarily well formulated. Therefore, I've put forward amendments that seek to clarify things, but these amendments are being systematically voted down.

• 1325

If we really want to work with the existing system, my amendment says that that's what we are going to do, but here, we're leaving the minister discretion to proceed with appointments herself, or himself. We are not telling him that he has to use existing organizations. I don't understand why these amendments are being systematically rejected, since they only improve the bill and clarify the position of the minister. I also recall that last week, the officials told us that there were things that should be changed, but now, any kind of change is being refused. This is ludicrous.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madame Guay.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, last Thursday we were told in committee that regional safety officers had quasi-judicial powers and in fact could be a tribunal. Section 140 states that the minister may designate a person, any person, as a regional safety officer, as we've been discussing. Would you elaborate on the tribunal aspect of the regional safety officer? There doesn't seem to be any mention of the fact that this could be a tribunal.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: This regional health and safety officer is not the appeals officer. That has been changed. In the present code we refer to what will now be an appeals officer as a regional safety and health officer. That led to confusion with some of our regional health and safety officers who are the senior officers in the region and who give advice to our safety and health officers. This is not the appeals function; this is the regional safety officer that exists in each region. We call them technical advisers, TAs. They're the regional safety officer. In other words, they give advice in the areas of safety and health. They don't have any of the powers of the appeals officer.

So this deals with that. There was confusion before, because in the present code we refer to what has now been changed to the appeals officer as the regional safety officer. I think that's why the wording has been changed. This does not relate to the appeals function.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you.

The Chair: Okay, I will call the amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We now go to Bloc motion 15.

[Translation]

The Chair: It is moved that Bill C-12, in clause 14, shall be amended by replacing line 20 on page 46 with the following:

[English]

—this is proposed section 145.1 on page 46—

[Translation]

145.1(1) The Minister may, following an open competition under the Public Service Employment Act, designate as an

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, once again, the appointments made by the minister are being verified. I simply want to point something out here. I have here before me positions that are open to the public for employment in the public service. Among these positions to be filled by competition, there is one for a senior project officer: this is included in our bill. There is also one for a regional geometry officer. Therefore, we have people here who are highly qualified.

If we proceeded by competition, we would find a host of people who have extraordinary qualifications. If this could be specified in the bill, it would seek to reassure both the public and members of Parliament. We would be ensuring that such appointments are not made by the minister, but through competitions open to the public.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: NDP motion 7 is next. The amendment is that clause 14 be amended by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 46 with the following:

Part may appeal the direction in writing to a regional health and safety officer within thirty days after the

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, I can save the committee a lot of time if you'll indulge me for longer than the one minute now. Then I won't need to speak on motions 7 through 16.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Pat Martin: I thought you might go for that.

• 1330

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: You brought your own cheering section, I see.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I don't think Mr. Martin was quite finished with his proposition. There may be more to it. We've agreed to it very hastily.

Mr. Pat Martin: No, I have, but that's not a bad idea to add something on now.

The Chair: All right, Pat, were you thinking about two minutes or were you thinking about twenty minutes?

Mr. Pat Martin: No, I might need three or four minutes.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Pat Martin: But I can save eight or nine.

The Chair: This is great, good.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'll be brief. One of the issues that the labour movement has been most concerned about is the change to the appeal system. The current appeal system is a two-stage appeal system where the first appeal—as the gentleman was just saying—would be to the RSO, and if they didn't get any satisfaction, it would go up to the CIRB, to the labour relations board, which we believe is where the appeal should ultimately end up. So we've put forward a series of motions that would contemplate keeping the two-tier appeal system.

Originally both the employers and the employees in the working group agreed that there should be a two-tier system for appeals in all cases, including discipline cases, the right to refuse, and directives. The government really intervened and rejected this view and wanted to put in place a one-tier or one-stage appeal system using a new category of appeals officers.

In other words, the government department would make the directive and stand as judge and jury on appeal. We believe this is just too close, it should be more at arm's length, and that the appropriate body to be hearing these appeals is the CIRB, because they are the experts in the field and it's a panel made up of labour, management, and a neutral chair.

So there's broad acceptance in both labour and management to leave it the way it was. So all of these amendments you see here are consequential amendments. The only amendment of substance is actually NDP-16, which calls for the appeal to go to the board. Everything else just changes the name “appeals officer” and substitutes it with appropriate language.

So I know we have to vote on number 7 because it's been introduced now, but really what we need to entertain is the whole concept of whether or not we agree with a two-tier appeal system. If so, I would need a positive vote on amendment 16 and all the others would be consequential. Or if you choose to vote number 16 down, frankly there's no need to deal with the others either, because they're consequential.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So let's deal with amendment 16.

Mr. Pat Martin: With the chair's permission, we could. It would make sense.

The Chair: I'm disposed to doing that. Does anybody disagree with my willingness to go to number 16 first, with the understanding that all the others are consequential and we'll deal with them really quickly without comment? Then that's fine.

Here we are. Let's go to NDP-16. It says that clause 14 be amended by replacing lines 29 and 31 on page 48 in the bill with the following:

146.3 The decision of the regional health and safety officers may be appealed to the Board within thirty days after the date of the decision and, unless otherwise ordered by the Board, the appeal does not operate as a stay of the decision.

I know you already gave some introduction, Mr. Martin. I'll give you another minute and then we'll deal with number 16.

Mr. Pat Martin: All of the things I said in introducing it still stand with amendment 16 here. The only argument we've really heard from the department is that there could be an additional cost factor in having this two-stage. We would argue that there is a cost factor associated with the single-stage appeals officer because, frankly, more and more cases would be appealed all the way to Federal Court. We all know how complicated that is.

We believe the appropriate body to hear appeals is ultimately the CIRB, and that the process should be that the first appeal goes to the regional safety officer asking them to review their decision. If you don't get satisfaction there, motion 16 says that you then go to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, where it properly belongs.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Johnston.

• 1335

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

I agree with Mr. Martin's rationale on this, and mainly because it was a position taken by both the employees and the employers. We had a meeting last week where we were told just that very thing by all the witnesses, that not only the employees but the employers agreed that there was consensus on it. At least it was suggested that there may be some movement on this, and I'm wondering if the department has in fact made any attempt to address the concerns of employer and employee in this regard since last week.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: I'm afraid the only answer I can give you is that our advice is that this falls as a basic principle of the bill and in the purview of the instructions regarding the cabinet decision that came with the bill. We are not in the position really to entertain that.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Perhaps then, Mr. Chairman, I would direct it to the political person who represents the department, the parliamentary secretary.

The Chair: And she was prepared to do that.

Madam Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I don't disagree. It's beyond my ability to say yea or nay. Cabinet has decided that it's a fundamental aspect of the bill.

One of the things I think we need to know is that we're going to be looking at the role of the CIRB and the PSSRB, and I think that when we look at the roles of both of those it may be a time when we look at this particular aspect. I think there is a possibility then, when we're looking at the roles of that, to bring this back again.

The other thing is that Pat keeps referring to it going to the CIRB, but he forgets that there is another board involved as well. One of the things we might look at in discussions with the minister is actually moving the offices into the same facility so that they could work more closely. But at this particular point, I think we're going to remain with it the way it is in the bill. I think there's a possibility further on, particularly when we review the roles of the two other boards, to look at this again.

The Chair: So when you said you weren't in a position to say yea or nay—

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'm not in a position to agree with Mr. Martin at this point.

The Chair: So you're not supporting the amendment?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'm not supporting the amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'd like to take the opportunity to wrap up a couple of points. Really, if the employers and the employees have figured that this is what their industry needs, I don't understand why the government or the department has the right to interfere with that industry sector. I think it's fundamentally wrong, and I'd like that on the record.

We just heard that the idea not to listen to the employers and the employees wasn't based on any reason or logic. It was just because the cabinet decision said so. We're relying on what may have been a flawed decision by cabinet in not acting on this. In the working group that went on for years to revamp this act, both the FETCO, the employers group, and the unions involved agreed that this is the way it should be. If it is the appeals officer, the official from the department, hearing the appeal, it's like the fox watching the henhouse. You have the department making the ruling and giving the directive, and the department hearing the appeal; and that's the end of it.

So I'm disappointed that we haven't been able to make progress here. It will certainly be coming up again at the report stage, because this may be the most key and pivotal amendment that our side needs.

• 1340

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Certainly the committee will not in any way stultify what you do at report stage.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, last week Mr. Blanchard was giving us some statistics on the number of decisions that had been overturned by the CIRB. I wonder if he has any information on how many safety officers' decisions were actually overturned by the Public Service Staff Relations Board.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: There are two types. The no-danger ones go to the Public Service Staff Relations Board and the CIRB, previously the CLRB. Of those that have gone to the PSSRB over the past five years, six have been referred. In other words, there have been six decisions of no danger within the public service that have been referred to the Public Service Staff Relations Board.

On the other side, 28 per year are referred to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Again, those are situations of no danger because that's where they go. Those have gone to those two boards. I'm not familiar with any decisions that have gone from those boards higher.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. The Federal Court has already ruled that the appeals officer is a quasi-judicial position. If we were to go to a second level, we'd have one quasi-judicial body reviewing another quasi-judicial body. That's not something that can effectively be done.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Longfield.

I'm going to propose, with the consent of the members, that this vote apply to all the other ones as per.... We can't do that procedurally? They weren't moved.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'd be willing to withdraw my motions 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18.

The Chair: Did you say 19?

Mr. Pat Martin: No, I want to talk about 19. That's a separate one.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Let's go on to amendment 19. It deals with clause 14.

It states that clause 14 be amended by replacing lines 27 to 33 on page 49 with the following:

147.1 (1) An employer may, after all of the investigations and appeals have been exhausted by the employee who has exercised rights under sections 128 and 129, take disciplinary action against the employee who the employer can demonstrate has willfully abused those rights.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: My remarks will be very brief. I think everybody recognizes that using the right to refuse in a malicious or vexatious way is fundamentally wrong. It's tantamount to industrial sabotage to misuse and abuse your right to refuse, so discipline is justifiable if an employee acts that way. But the onus should be on the employer to make sure they aren't treating this lightly by disciplining when it's not justified. Our language adds an additional burden of proof to the employer, to be certain that there was malice aforethought in misusing the right to refuse.

I understand there's interest on the government side in allowing this motion to succeed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: There certainly is, Mr. Chair. I have no problem with this at all. It's something I can support.

• 1345

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Next is amendment BQ-16—we're now on page 50—that Bill C-12, in clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 30 on page 50....

In the French, it's from line 11 to line 34 on page 50.

Shall I dispense with the reading? Thank you. I have so dispensed.

[Translation]

Ms. Guay, you have the choice to exercise your right.

Ms. Monique Guay: Is it my turn, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Monique Guay: We are now on page 50. I apologize, but I was trying to put my amendments in order so as to explain them properly.

The Chair: We are on page 50.

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, in clause 148(2), we are changing the penalties. We are increasing them. Do you want to read the amendment, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: I went through it, and I dispensed.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: So all we have done is increase the amount of the penalties. We have increased the fines from $1 million as indicated in the bill to $5 million and $10 million. Take the time to read it. We think that in some cases, when an employer makes a serious mistake, penalties must be meeted out accordingly.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We'll go on to amendment BQ-17. We're still on page 50.

[Translation]

It is moved that Bill C-12, in clause 14, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 50 the following:

(3.1) When imposing a sentence, the court shall ensure that the sentence does not cause the loss of employment of any of the offender's employees.

Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, this simply means that in determining a sentence for the penalized employer, we should ensure that this employer not take any action that could mean that the employee who is injured, who has experienced health problems or who has lost certain abilities because of negligence loses his or her job.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Next is amendment BQ-18. We're on page 51. Shall I dispense? Thanks.

[Translation]

Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to mention that an employer sentenced to paying a fine under the present Act should be prohibited from taking any action that would cause an employee to lose his or her job, in order to pay that fine. Therefore, this would prohibit the employer or the owner of a company from selling that enterprise or liquidating it and causing job losses, which could be numerous. The employer would have to find another way to pay the fine. Otherwise, he could even be sentenced to prison. It would be up to the judge to decide. It's not up to me to determine that, but this is to protect the employees. The point is to prevent liquidation of companies and massive layoffs caused by an error by the employer.

• 1350

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Bloc amendment BQ-19 says that clause 14 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 51—

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: This is a new clause. Is it my turn, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Monique Guay: This is a new clause that we feel is quite innovative. We believe that the proceeds of any fine imposed on an employer should, under clause 148, be assigned to Her Majesty in Right of Canada. The proceeds of this fine would be paid by the person who receives it in order to use the money to establish health and safety training programs. So the point here is prevention. Rather than going to government coffers, these fines would go into a special fund for health and safety training programs and workplace accident prevention.

The Chair: All right.

[English]

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 15)

The Chair: Bloc amendment BQ-20 says that clause 15 in Bill C-12 be amended by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 51—and in the French on lines 13 and 14—with the following:

except with the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, do you want me to explain it?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, the provision would read as follows:

149.(1) No proceeding in respect of an offence under this part may be instituted except with the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.

We are proposing that it be the consent of the Attorney General of Canada and not that of the minister or person designated by him. It's up to the Attorney General of Canada to make this decision and not the minister.

The Chair: Fine.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 15 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 16 to 18 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 19 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 20 to 30 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 31 agreed to on division)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you. Before we continue, Mr. Chairman, allow me to say that I have tabled the 1992-93 summary before the committee. Will the officials be providing us with the same examples for this year regarding salaries and the reassignment of pregnant women? I'd like to have that model in my office this week.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. I don't know whether you got that, Mr. Blanchard. There's a specific request that flows from Mr. St-Julien's deposition of examples from another Parliament. You'll comply, I guess. You'll provide us with some of that information. Would you do that through the clerk?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: It was Bill C-101.

The Chair: Yes.

[English]

Make that available to the clerk and the clerk will distribute it. Thank you.

Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

• 1355

The Chair: Shall I report the bill, with amendments, to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I don't think we need to worry about the reprinting for use at report stage, because there are so few of them.

Colleagues, I want to thank you very much for your cooperation in this bill. I congratulate you on your diligence as well.

Just before you leave, we have a wonderful supper planned for everybody tonight, because we're meeting at 3:30 in room 362—right here—on Bill C-11, DEVCO.

The meeting is adjourned until 3:30, room 362.