Finance Committee on May 17th, 2012

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

Those are all of my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

Are there any further questions?

We'll have Mr. Brison, please.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Just to clarify, this has no effect on the treasury? Audits in a budget implementation bill....

[Lenore Duff]

Sorry, perhaps I should clarify that. This is a DRAP-related measure, a deficit reduction action plan related measure. Currently, someone is responsible in the labour program for making certain that the collective agreements that haven't been filed are tracked down, because it's a requirement in the Canada Labour Code. That person will no longer be required to do that and take those measures.

There is no cost in terms of the service, but with respect to the work, it will mean that the person can use his or her time on other things that labour program officials are concerned with.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Are there any further questions on this?

Thank you very much, Ms. Duff. We appreciate your time here tonight.

[Lenore Duff]

I have a couple more.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Oh, sorry.

[Lenore Duff]

There's another part to division 22—and then I'm here for division 23, as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

[Lenore Duff]

The other part of division 22 is another amendment to the Canada Labour Code, unrelated to the first one. This amends part III of the Canada Labour Code to require federally regulated employers to insure, on a go-forward basis, any long-term disability plans they may offer to their employees. A transition period will be provided to ensure that employers have sufficient time to comply with the legislative change. As well, the maximum fines for offences under part III of the Canada Labour Code will be increased, and new graduated fine provisions that allow for higher fines for repeat offenders will be introduced.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much.

Could I ask you to do the overview for division 23, then, at this point?

[Lenore Duff]

Yes.

Division 23 in the part IV of the bill repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which was enacted in 1935. It stipulates that all persons employed by a contractor doing work on a federal government contract for construction, remodelling, repair, or demolition of any work, must be paid at least “fair wages”, defined in the act as “wages as are generally accepted as current for competent workmen in the district in which the work is being performed”.

The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act holds contractors financially responsible if any of their subcontractors fail to pay wages. This division would repeal the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act and, as a consequential amendment, remove reference to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act in the Campobello-Lubec Bridge Act. It would also stipulate that rights and obligations acquired under an existing contract to which the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act apply will not be affected. Employers in the construction industry, who are provincially regulated, will continue to be subject to provincial or territorial employment standards, and occupational health and safety legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much.

Any questions?

We'll start with Mr. Marston, please.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Your explanation is pretty good, but I'm a little bit troubled because any time it appears that the protections for someone are being removed.... So if a contractor bid, let's say, on West Block, just as an example, and they were to bring in workers who were paid half of what workers normally would be paid on that site, under the old legislation that would be corrected. Would that be the case?

[Lenore Duff]

Under the old legislation, there would be wage schedules used to determine the fair wages for those employees.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

So, if on that scale, it said that the wage should be 30% more than what they were paying, then there would have been an adjustment made to protect those workers. Would that have been the case?

[Lenore Duff]

If that were the case, that would happen. I guess I would say that for construction workers who were unionized—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That's it—

[Lenore Duff]

—typically the wage would be higher—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

—and they'd have protection already.

[Lenore Duff]

Right, and there are provinces that have provincial legislation stipulating wage rates in particular industries.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

What I am concerned about is that if we're having work done in the precinct and somehow we could have substandard wages paid to people working there, it's troubling that we could say this is an acceptable practice. It appears, to me at least, that this is what's happening here.

What mechanisms would be available after this change to ensure fair working conditions for persons employed by the contractor? Is there anything after the fact, if this is enacted?

[Lenore Duff]

I think the primary rationale for eliminating this is that it's duplicative. There is provincial and territorial labour standards legislation applied to these workers. In this instance, it's a federal standard that was established in the 1930s at a time when provincial labour legislation was much weaker. At this point, it's just establishing a layer on top of provincial and territorial legislation that duplicates much of what exists in provinces and territories now.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Yes, having been a Bell Canada worker for 20-odd years, I know that Bell Canada would be one of the groups that could be coming in to do work. So they'd be under federal jurisdiction as opposed to provincial jurisdiction, because of communications.