Finance Committee on Nov. 27th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll take the vote on NDP-9.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 177 agreed to)

Can I group clauses 178 to 180?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clauses 178 to 180 inclusive agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 181)

We have amendment NDP-10.

Ms. Nash.

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

Yes, this is about making sure, given that the minister is concentrating all the power in his or her office, that he or she is getting a full picture of what's going on in a workplace.

Right now what Bill C-4 would do is, if there is a health and safety committee and the committee is not unanimous on a decision or points of view on something, only the majority decision or the majority viewpoint would be reported to the minister. However, there may be a diversity of opinion. There may be a minority opinion. We believe that the minister ought to get all the information. If a decision is not unanimous, we think that all the results should be passed on to the minister.

That's what amendment NDP-10 would do.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is there further discussion on this?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 181 agreed to)

(On clause 182)

Colleagues, there is another amendment. You should have an amendment dealing with clause 182. I am going to call it amendment NDP-10.1.

Ms. Nash.

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

Mr. Chair, I apologize for the lateness of this motion.

This amendment would eliminate the ability of the minister to throw out a refusal on the grounds of it being in bad faith or being trivial. Again, we don't believe the minister has the ability to determine that, and the concentration of power in the hands of the minister, we think, could be detrimental to the health and safety of people working in federal jurisdiction workplaces across this country, so we're proposing that this ability be eliminated.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 182 agreed to)

(Clauses 183 to 189 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 190)

We have amendment NDP-11.

Ms. Nash.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would require that any individual to whom the minister delegates his or her health and safety powers, which is the ability that would be granted through Bill C-4, in fact is qualified to exercise those powers, which I'm sure everyone in this room would think is kind of basic. If you're going to give powers to someone to enforce the law, they actually should be qualified to do so. The person who is being delegated with this power would have the appropriate training in occupational health and safety or at least have the equivalent experience. That is what our amendment proposes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Dealing with amendment NDP-11, we'll have Mr. Saxton, please.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Chair, very quickly, I want to mention to Ms. Nash that the notion that the person has to be qualified is already set out in subsection 140(1).

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 190 agreed to)

(Clauses 191 to 195 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 196)

Ms. Nash.

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

Mr. Chair, it's linked to the subsequent amendments as well, NDP-12 and NDP-13.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You can speak to them now, if you like.

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

The amendment is a key request from stakeholders in the health and safety area who have called for the introduction of an appeal process for a ministerial decision around a work refusal. I've already spoken to the difficulty in concentrating this power in the hands of the minister and the lack of the ability of the minister to fully carry out this power when it comes to the work of a health and safety officer and the ability of the minister to delegate this power.

The Conservatives have just defeated a motion that would have required competency in the person to whom that power is delegated, so this is to ensure a fair and transparent process in work refusals so that if there is a decision that a work refusal is not going to be upheld by the ministerial representative, there is some kind of appeal process, which does exist in many jurisdictions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for that.

I'm going to deal with clause 196 first, then.

All in favour of clause 196?

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

Well, hang on. Excuse me, are you taking—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm just doing clause 196 first.

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

We're not voting on the amendments?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Not yet. I'll do that in succession.

(Clause 196 agreed to)

(On clause 197)

We'll go to clause 197.

We have amendment NDP-12, which Ms. Nash addressed. We also have amendments PV-6 and LIB-3.

We'll go to Ms. May for one minute, approximately.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to second everything that Ms. Nash has said about how egregious these changes to the Canada Labour Code are. She started out as a health and safety worker. I once practised union side labour law. Seeing these changes to the Canada Labour Code without background, without consulting any of the key stakeholders is really quite shocking. I don't know in whose interests these changes are, but we certainly oppose them.

This amendment goes to the fact that there's replacement of health and safety worker judgment with levels of political discretion of the minister without statutory appeal. What I'm proposing in amendment PV-6 is that the decisions that are made under subsection 129(1), where the minister can decide not to investigate, would now be open to a statutory appeal for the employer, the employee, or the trade union. It expands the language that you now find in section 146 to include not only the direction the minister may make but a decision the minister makes under new section 129 not to investigate.

It certainly is capricious to give political discretion and deny an appeal.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. May.

We'll go to Mr. Saxton on this as well.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to remind Ms. May that recourse mechanisms still exist to address issues that are not appealable. In addition, the authority given to the minister to determine not to investigate under the proposed changes to subsection 129(1) is aligned to other acts, such as the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Therefore, Ms. May, your amendment is not necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

I'll just remind members that comments go through the chair.

Ms. Nash.

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

Mr. Chair, the notion that somehow, if you are told that you don't have a work refusal and you have recourse to the Canadian Human Rights Act is a bit ludicrous. Presumably you're refusing work because you believe that your health and safety are in danger. As we know, human rights legislation involves a very lengthy process and is the antithesis of a speedy resolution of a health and safety measure.

Frankly, it's absolutely not a solution to an appeal process. If somebody believes that their health and safety are in danger, especially if their refusal is rejected by a phone call from somebody who perhaps isn't even qualified to make that decision, goodness gracious, we could be putting people's lives at risk. I think that having some kind of basic appeal is pretty standard and would add greater transparency and safety to the workplace. I think that has to be paramount in all our minds as we contemplate this legislation.

In how many workplaces do you see safety is job one? It ought to be our job one when we are thinking through the impact of these clauses in Bill C-4. People's health, their limbs, their lives, could depend on the decisions we make. It sounds dramatic, except that bad things happen, and I think our obligation is to do the most we possibly can to ensure that people are protected and that their rights are enforced. Frankly, in a safety situation, recourse to human rights legislation, which could take years, is not a solution.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

Colleagues, we also have amendments LIB-3 and LIB-4.

Mr. Brison, do you wish to add to the debate?