Finance Committee on Nov. 27th, 2013

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

We could group up to clause 166.

(Clauses 159 to 166 inclusive agreed to on division)

(Clauses 167 to 175 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 176)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I know that Ms. May is very keen to get going on her amendment. May I just propose a five-minute break before we get to clause 176?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

My comments will only take an hour, so if you want a break, take it now.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

That's what I was anticipating, Elizabeth. Let's make it a 10-minute break.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll suspend for five minutes, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order.

We are resuming debate on Bill C-4, with clause-by-clause discussion. We left off at clause 176.

Colleagues, we have a number of amendments. We have Green Party amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and we have NDP amendments 7 and 8.

This is a grey area but I'm proposing, and hopefully it's agreeable to you, that we give Ms. May a maximum of five minutes to address all of her amendments in this clause, if she can do that in one fell swoop. Then we will go to the NDP, and they'll address their amendments.

Ms. May, you may address your five amendments, please.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will start out with a brief on-the-record statement of protest. The first protest would be to any taxidermal treatment of the chair. I want that on the record because I wasn't able to speak to the point when you were suggesting you might be stuffed soon. I think we appreciate your role here.

I also want to say, on a serious point, that although I realize my appearance and participation here is couched in terms of an invitation, it's essentially not an invitation that I welcomed. I want to repeat that the entire operation of identical motions in multiple committees has the effect of reducing the rights of members of Parliament such as myself. Essentially, to participate in a less than meaningful way is—without any personal comment towards any of you here, and certainly no personal animus, because I don't believe anyone around this table initiated this process—coercive, as I regard it, and an abuse of the powers of a majority towards a minority.

Moving on to my five amendments which all relate to division 5, I'm speaking to changes that I have proposed in five different amendments to clause 176. This is the clause that changes the Canada Labour Code by essentially eliminating the role of the health and safety officers and regional health and safety officers and changing the definition of “danger”.

To move through them fairly quickly, my first amendment is to delete the repeal of the definitions of “health and safety officer” and “regional health and safety officer”. I noted that during evidence-taking at the human resources committee, and this amendment is largely based on testimony that the committee heard, particularly Chris Aylward from PSAC made the point: The current health and safety officers are neutral, trained and specialized. They have the authority to monitor workplaces and issue directions.

We think that it's an unhelpful move in Canada Labour Code management, and a lot of sophisticated work has built up over the years to have a Canada Labour Code that works, and that it's capricious to remove the important role of the health and safety officers. Amendment PV-1, the Green Party's first amendment, essentially is a deletion of just a few of the lines in clause 176 so as to preserve the role of health and safety officers.

Amendment PV-2 similarly deletes the new definition of “danger”, which would allow us to revert to the previous one. In this amendment, I'd like to cite the evidence that was heard from Hassan Yussuff of the Canadian Labour Congress, who pointed out that by redefining “dangerous work”, “the bill basically narrows the scope of application that allows workers to exercise their right to refuse dangerous work. The right to refuse work would now only apply to workplace conditions that cause so-called 'imminent or serious threat' to the worker.”

As you can see, my amendments proceed along the lines of finding ways in the alternative, and I provide them in the alternative in the hope that one of them might actually succeed to preserve both the role of the health and safety officers and/or a more reasonable comprehensive definition of “danger”, so that workers will have the right to refuse dangerous work.

Amendment PV-2 speaks to that deletion.

Amendment PV-3 moves to my first alternative definition of “danger”. It attempts to revert to the previous definition while adding elements of hazard or condition. The amendment itself both preserves the current definition of “danger” and adds to it.

Moving quickly to amendment PV-4, we have another alternative definition, but this time adding the notion of acute or chronic shock.

The fifth definition is one that... We found a paper from some time ago from the Canadian Labour Congress suggesting that the World Health Organization's definition of “health”, which is incorporated in amendment PV-5, would in fact be more comprehensive and useful for workers in being able to refuse dangerous work.

I think I've taken less than five minutes, but that's a quick summary of the five amendments I've put forward to protect workers and protect the scheme by which workers are currently protected through health and safety workers.

Another amendment goes to this point but occurs further along in division 5.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Ms. May.

I'll just look to my NDP colleagues. Do we wish to deal with the Green Party amendments first, or do you wish to address this clause and your amendments and then have the votes on everything all at once?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

We can deal with everything all at once. I think we'll be voting the same way.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Ms. Nash, please address your amendments to this clause.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Sure. I just want to say first of all that we support the amendments put forward by Ms. May, as well as putting forward our own amendments that I'll describe in just a moment.

I want to start off by saying that I think the changes which the Conservative government is making about workplace health and safety are the most serious and dangerous changes in this bill. I'm very, very strongly opposed to them, as are many of the witnesses we heard testify before committees.

I have to say, when I first started getting involved in my union as a young person, it was as a health and safety representative in the federal jurisdiction, so on a personal level, I really valued the health and safety legislation. I saw it progressively get stronger over the years, and the changes in this legislation would in fact take the legislation back in time many, many years. Ultimately, I think it will make the workplace much more dangerous and less desirable for Canadian workers.

Fundamentally, every worker deserves a workplace that is safe and healthy, that's free from danger, free from health hazards. The obligation is on the employer to provide that safe and healthy workplace. That's their legal requirement. Working people also have rights, such as the right to refuse unsafe work, to know what they're working with, to participate in their health and safety, but how you define the right to refuse work, for example, is changing dramatically. It is becoming narrowed by this legislation. What that means is there are workplace conditions that previously would have meant that a worker can decide that it is dangerous for them and they could have had the right to say that they don't want to put themselves in that situation. With these changes, they would be obliged to continue to work.

I don't think we have an absolute epidemic of work refusals in this country. It's a pretty serious step for someone to refuse to continue to work, but when someone does refuse, it is the right that they ought to have in order to protect the integrity of their own health. It is really rolling back the clock to narrow this definition. Let's make no mistake that it will increase the risk that workers are subjected to, and it will increase the injuries. It will increase, in fact, the compensation claims and the lost time, and ultimately will be very dangerous for workers. It also doesn't make good economic sense on that basic level.

Speaking to our amendment on narrowing the definition of “danger”, we believe that providing an alternative definition that's more substantive in scope is important. Again, we think that when it comes to a person's individual health and safety, none of us wants to be put in a position where the employer is saying that you must work even though you truly believe it is going to be a serious health risk or a serious risk to your safety.

The other amendment is about the change the government is making, which is to strip health and safety officers of nearly all of their powers and concentrate them in the hands of the minister. The minister has a myriad of other things that he or she is responsible for. The minister cannot have the expertise of a health and safety officer, who is trained, who does this for a living, who is an expert, and has a track record when it comes to health and safety. It really makes no sense.

Again, as I said on a previous clause, it lacks transparency and accountability, and ultimately it would undermine the ability of people to get their rights enforced in the workplace.

Our amendment would undo the elimination of health and safety officers, while requiring that they be government employees and not be outsourced or have that power concentrated in the hands of the minister.

I want to say that one of the changes in the rules which we find is remarkable is that under the changes in Bill C-4, there would no longer need to be a physical inspection of a work site, an actual workplace; a phone call would suffice. You can just imagine this: the employer is sitting in an office and someone from the minister's office, or someone that has been delegated, phones up and says, “ Is this okay? Have you got that done? Did you do this? Are you going to do this?” “Sure, everything's fine. Good to go.”

The fact that they would not have to go there and lay their eyes right on that situation and inspect it for themselves frankly is shocking, and it's unbelievable. I just can't imagine that we would allow that situation through our laws. This is Canada, and people have a fundamental right to a safe and healthy workplace. We're strongly opposed to the changes that would be made through this bill.

We believe that our amendments and Ms. May's amendments would help correct some of these changes. Again, I would urge my colleagues across the way to put themselves in the position of someone who's trying to get a basic right enforced and that employer is sitting in the office telling an inspector over the phone that the workplace is good to go, no problem.

Hopefully, you will support our amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

Mr. Jean, and then I'll go to Mr. Saxton, please.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Very quickly, I understand that if you look at OHS Canada, Canada's occupational health and safety magazine, you'll see that it has even recognized in several articles, one in particular, that there is an issue with the law. My understanding is that this fix proposed by the government is a result of cases such as the Canadian Labour Relations Board heard in Alan Kucher v. Canadian National Railway Company, where it was found that, under the current definition, a refusal of work could be decided on the basis of 20 years of working habits with somebody, and in the circumstances, it found that it was adequate, even though in my mind, after reading some of the facts behind the case, I find it kind of ridiculous.

I think the response by the government is a result of an uncertainty in the law even recognized by that particular industry in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

We'll go to Mr. Saxton, please.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Jean, for making that very important point.

What we're proposing here in Bill C-4 is designed to ensure clarity, oversight, and consistent application of the Canada Labour Code across work sites, employers, and industrial sectors. Health and safety officers will continue to play an important role in enforcing the Canada Labour Code.

Ms. Nash's and Ms. May's proposal is not feasible legally as a definition of a term. For example, “health and safety officer” cannot be included when that term is not used within the legislation. As well, the term “federal public administration” would affect the minister's ability to delegate to an employee of a province. We cannot support either of their amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I would like to take advantage of the fact that we are talking about amendments, including those of the Green Party, to reiterate our strong opposition to the process imposed on the committee. This process takes away the traditional rights fundamentally acquired—and for good reason—by independent members of Parliament or party members not recognized by the House of Commons. Given the tradition and given that those members of Parliament cannot sit on committees the way we do, they do not have the same rights as us. They had acquired the right to introduce amendments in the House at report stage. However, their right was denied, and we strongly oppose that.

We condemn the initiative of the Conservative government. Furthermore, we are extremely surprised that the committee member representing the Liberal Party has also supported this government measure, which takes away a good number of the few rights independent MPs can still have in the House and in committees.

Once again, we will vote the way we have to vote unfortunately. However, I hope that the government does not make a habit out of this for future bills, or a habit that could be seen in other committees in terms of some of the other aspects we have discussed.

Each MP here in this committee also represents a riding. We have the right to represent our constituents. Unfortunately, this right has largely been taken away from those who represent the constituents of their ridings without their party being recognized by the House.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

Colleagues, I'm going to take the vote first on amendment PV-1. Can we apply the vote on PV-1 to PV-2, PV-3, PV-4, and PV-5, or do you want separate votes on each?

[An hon. member]

One is fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

So we shall apply it.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Can I take the vote on NDP-7 and apply it to NDP-8?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 176 carry?

(Clause 176 agreed to)

(On clause 177)

On this clause we have amendment NDP-9.

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Under existing legislation, a health and safety officer can require the posting of notices in any location, but under clause 177 of Bill C-4, that power is eliminated.

This amendment would allow the minister or his or her delegate to require multiple postings in a workplace, as had been the case previously. One can only imagine very large workplaces with great distances between people and the ability.... I have seen situations in which something is posted, but it's in the supervisor's office, or it's in a place that's not easily accessible to the majority of workers in a workplace.

The ability to have multiple postings of notices is just a practicality. I have no idea why the government would want to eliminate that possibility. If there's a notice that can help protect people's health and safety, goodness gracious, surely we would want them to be aware of it. Or if there's an order for the employer to do something in the workplace, this is a good check and balance so that the people who work there every day can make sure that it happens.

Our amendment would basically require the status quo, that the officer have the ability to require multiple postings. This was the case previously.