Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 31st, 2006

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

You should put that down in writing and send your recommendations to our clerk before Friday, if possible, so that we can study them during the clause-by-clause consideration.

Here's my last question. You said you would like this act to be applicable at the provincial level as well. I believe that would cause an overlap problem and even a jurisdictional problem. The provinces already have their legislation and their system of protection. So I don't see how this act could be enforced at the provincial level. I'd like to hear what you have to say on the subject.

[Shalom Schachter]

On your first point, I apologize for not having copies of my comments for every member of the committee. I have given one copy to the clerk, who is going to arrange to translate it and distribute it, so I hope that meets your needs.

In terms of the duplication, the principle has already been applied, for example, with freedom of information legislation. The House of Commons and the Senate adopted legislation a number of years ago that dealt with freedom of information and protection of privacy, and it gave the legislatures of the different provincial jurisdictions a certain number of years to bring in their own legislation. If they did and it met at least the level of the federal protections, then they were to govern, but if they didn't, then the federal legislation would apply across the country, and I think that's an appropriate model here.

One of the problems is that governments promise whistle-blower protection. The current Ontario government has promised whistle-blower protection for a number of years. Members of my union have engaged in disclosure of situations where residents of long-term care facilities are not getting the care they need. They are getting disciplined for going public with those disclosures, and the government has not brought in whistle-blower protection.

So it's important for the House of Commons and the Senate to act to give a basic standard of protection for all whistle-blowers across the country.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

In Quebec, we already have protection for whistleblowers. So that would cause a very serious overlap problem between the two governments. I don't think that could be applicable. Of course, the provinces that have no whistleblower protection legislation would have to pass some, but that would cause a serious duplication problem in Quebec. This isn't desirable for us.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're out of time, Madam Guay. Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses. It's a real pleasure to see both of you. I come from a labour background myself, as a former business manager of the carpenters union in Manitoba. Labour isn't always invited to bring their point of view to this type of activity, so it's important that your voices are heard.

From what I've heard of the briefs you've put forward, I think your recommendations will be helpful and useful, and especially your experience.

I'll begin with the whistle-blower section, Mr. Schachter. Your point is well taken, especially in the health care field. I can imagine you would have ample experience where workers probably would have come forward but for fear of reprisal.

I remember one high-level case in Manitoba concerning the head of pediatric heart surgery. There were actually 12 children who died, and there was a public inquiry. Nurses in the operating room were observing things that they knew full well to be just wrong. No one could come forward. There was such a culture of commitment. The master-servant relationship was such that it was viewed as a breach of some ancient code of loyalty that they owed. So it is difficult to balance the public's right to know and that ancient relationship.

In the carpentry trade, the master-servant relationship is part of ancient common tradition, and is in fact part of common law--your duty of loyalty to your employer. So it's difficult.

But as a former union organizer and then business manager, I know the Public Service Staff Relations Board and the CIRB are often backlogged two or three years. Talk about justice denied and justice delayed.

Would you agree that it would be far better to go to a specialized tribunal for that reason alone, rather than making an allegation of reprisal and then having a two- or three-year wait, and then still it's a fifty-fifty chance, because once the lawyers get at it, you have to make your case? Is that a good enough reason for a separate tribunal?

[Shalom Schachter]

Again, the important thing is that the right of whistle-blowing exist, that there be effective protections against retaliation, and then it's a question of architecture, if you like, to design the mechanisms that will be most effective.

Certainly the delay that's involved--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Excuse me, order. We have a lot of conversations going on in here. I'm being distracted, and I'm sure the witnesses are being distracted. So if you want to talk, please go outside.

Sorry, Mr. Schachter.

[Shalom Schachter]

The delay that's involved in workers getting their cases to arbitration is just atrocious. I find it remarkable that at 5:30 on Monday morning, the Toronto Transit Commission was able to get access to the labour board and get a ruling that the disruption was against the law. I have nothing against that quick access to justice, but it seems that only exists for employers and not for workers. So it's important to get quick access for both parties in the workplace.

The issue is whether the tribunal is a better entity as opposed to the existing labour boards. I think the issue is really going to be one of resources. If the new tribunal is not given the resources, there will be a backlog as well; and if the existing boards are given the appropriate resources, they will be able to deal with the backlogs.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, I certainly share that view.

Now, I know the expertise was one issue that you raised, that boards will have that expertise, but I don't see why that can't be developed. There are certainly leading arbitration cases that a new tribunal could draw from. They don't have to create their own jurisprudence. They can draw from the same arbitration cases that we deal with.

[Shalom Schachter]

If the committee is going to look at the tribunal mechanism, then they should also look at the process by which labour tribunals have been appointed in the past, that they are tripartite, that an effort is made to try to get appointments that have acceptability from both the employers' side and from the workers' side of the community. Without that acceptability, the tribunal process may be suspect, but if you do have that effort at acceptability, the tribunal process may be appropriate.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes.

I notice that the Steelworkers' brief does make reference to the disappointment that there isn't greater attention paid to the Access to Information Act or reform, and I certainly concur with that. It was a great disappointment for us. We believe freedom of information is the oxygen that democracy breathes and people have a right to know.

Would you expand on how the Steelworkers came to this point?

[Kristen Agrell]

I'm afraid I can't. I only have an overview of that portion of the act, but I could get more information.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I understand. It's perhaps hard to comment on something that's absent from the bill.

You've made your point that the Steelworkers are disappointed there wasn't more to it.

[Kristen Agrell]

I think the problem with accessing information on the areas that were already covered with the bill was something we'd been hoping would be covered, rather than simply adding more areas that would experience the same problems as had existed in the past.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes. Good point.

Mr. Schachter, did you want to comment on that?

[Shalom Schachter]

Again, I'm not experienced with the federal practice, but in terms of provincial practice, the freedom of information legislation is only applicable to governmental bodies. What the current government has done is to create, if you like, arm's-length entities, which are still publicly appointed but are then exempt from freedom of information legislation. In the areas of health care, where our union operates, we need to have access to those so we can be proper advocates for the recipients of health care. Because of these limitations in the provincial legislation in not governing all providers of health care, we've been deprived of that access, and we think the public suffers.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You raise a good point.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That appears to be it, Mr. Martin.

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

My question is for Ms. Agrell from the Steelworkers Union.

You've tabled a brief here in which you talk about lobbyists. You know what a lobbyist is: it's a person who approaches members or ministers on behalf of a specific group. When, for example, a union president goes to see the Minister of Labour, should he be considered a lobbyist and register, since what he obtains will be intended for a specific group, for specific purposes?

[Kristen Agrell]

I know the Steelworkers do engage in lobbying, in several different ways. I don't know about the exact definition, but we're certainly happy that any regulations imposed on other lobbyists also affect the union's activities.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

[Shalom Schachter]

If I could just make a comment on this. Obviously, if any official of the Ontario Nurses' Association were to meet with any government official, by virtue of the fact that they are with the association, the public would know that nurses have an agenda and are trying to adopt that.

The problem is that if I'm working as a lawyer in a law firm or some private company and I'm lobbying on behalf of clients, then the public doesn't know who those clients are. That's where there could be greater mischief if there isn't proper disclosure of who it is that is really the beneficiary of the discussions between the lobbyist and the government official.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just by way of background, Ms. Agrell, I also have a family connection with unionism in Canada. As a matter of fact, my father was the head of the United Steelworkers of America in the western Canadian region for many years. I note with interest that Ken Neumann's name is on your brief. My father trained Ken Neumann and brought him into the union movement.

First, I have a point of clarification. You mentioned in your brief that you would like to see the Accountability Act extended to cover leadership races. It does. That's my first point.

The point that I want both your opinions on is the fact that you agree--at least in the Steelworkers brief--that union contributions as well as corporate contributions should be eliminated altogether. You also mentioned, quite correctly, that unions contribute to political campaigns and political parties in many different ways. One of the most common ways that I'm aware of is that the union will pay the salary of one of their employees who then takes the month off to work on a particular campaign.

Do you agree that this should also be contemplated in this act in the same manner as it would be for a cash donation?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There's no need to worry. If you don't know, just say so.