Human Resources Committee on Nov. 19th, 2013

[Brenda Baxter]

Absolutely not. Health and safety officers remain key to enforcement of the code, and there is no intention to reduce the number of health and safety officers.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Is this going to in any way undermine the work and expertise of those health and safety officers?

[Brenda Baxter]

Absolutely not. Critical to enforcement of the code is ensuring that our officers have the expertise and skills to assist employees and employers to make sure the workplaces are healthy and safe.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

One of the things I saw that I thought was very disturbing and very misleading was a pregnant woman stating that she was going to be put at risk due to these changes. Could you talk a little bit about this piece of the act and other areas? There are other protections for pregnant women. Absolutely, as I understand it, this will in no way impact women in their ability to protect themselves from reproductive hazards.

[Brenda Baxter]

Thank you for the question. It's a very important point.

The clarification of the definition of danger continues to protect employees from imminent or serious dangers to their life or health. This would include protection for pregnant and nursing women. In fact, under part 2 of the Labour Code, section 132 actually speaks to specific protections for pregnant and nursing women. In addition, under part 3 of the code, under section 204 it also provides job protection for pregnant or nursing women.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

So this picture that's out there of a pregnant woman stating that this is going to create a danger to her and her unborn child is absolutely not accurate in terms of the changes we're making?

[Brenda Baxter]

That's correct.

The definition doesn't limit a worker's refusal to work when they believe they're exposed to any sort of hazardous substance that could result in anything such as an occupational illness. As well, it continues to provide the protections from all hazards, whether the impact is immediate, such as impact from a fall, or longer term, such as an occupational illness.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I came from a provincially regulated workforce. We had the ability, between employer and employee, to have the conversation. We had a very active workplace health and safety committee. And we were in a fairly high-risk area. Certainly, health care has issues that could be considered high risk in terms of what they're dealing with. I saw all the issues that we dealt with resolved internally with what we call the internal responsibility system.

If you're going to look at comparing perhaps a provincial system to the federal government system, could you comment on that? I'm certainly familiar with all our resolutions happening within that environment.

[Brenda Baxter]

Thank you. It's a very important point.

In the workplace it's the employees and employers who know their workplace and are best placed to determine if there's a particular hazard in the workplace, and best placed to work together to ensure that they identify that hazard and put in place mitigation strategies so that hazard doesn't become a danger. This is what we see as the internal responsibility system. It is the cornerstone of part 2 of the Canada Labour Code.

What we are doing with the proposed amendments is trying to reinforce that internal responsibility system. In fact, this change is strengthening the role of the health and safety committees within that internal responsibility system and within the refusal-to-work process. We're adding a step to ensure that there is an investigation undertaken by the health and safety committee, which is a two-step refusal-to-work process and is consistent with what the majority of the other health and safety jurisdictions in Canada have in place.

It's really ensuring that the Canada Labour Code has the same level of rigour with regard to the refusal to work and the internal responsibility system as the other jurisdictions.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

The other piece that I'm very familiar with, and again, we're talking provincially, is the number of roles, whether it be licensing or other roles, in which delegation is the norm. Delegation was a very effective tool to ensure consistency in terms of approach and being able to mobilize resources.

Is this a political...or is this an appropriate tool to create consistency across the country?

[Kin Choi]

Thank you very much for that.

Moving to this model where the minister will be conferred with the authority to delegate powers and duties to a health and safety officer is not different from what we see in different practices within the federal public service programs. As an executive, I'm delegated, through the minister, authorities on things such as financial delegation. Similarly, in programs from privacy administration to transportation of dangerous goods we see this model as well. We think it's important that we have this so we can support our health and safety officers in doing their work.

It's important to note that our health and safety officers do important and difficult work at times, especially when there are investigations of fatalities and injuries in the workplace. The delegation model ensures that we provide them with the support and training in the certification process so that they're up to that task, so they're supported to be able to do those important jobs. That's why we're moving toward this model.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you. That ends your time.

Now we'll move on to Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you for being here today.

The code covers 1.25 million workers and thousands of companies. The rationale for the change is the 80% refusal rate. Over the last 10 years, what is the actual number of cases that would have been dealt with?

[Kin Choi]

Brenda is looking up the exact numbers.

We average somewhere between 150 to 200 cases of refusals. It's important to note that sometimes the refusal is a single employee and sometimes it's a group one, so the numbers don't—

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Yes, because the research we have is that it's under 1,000 over 10 years. We looked at it. It's about 100 a year, so 20% are recognized, but the other 80%, to cover 1.25 million workers, I just wonder.... If they're unfounded, do you immediately recognize them as a bogus file? Or do you measure that?

[Kin Choi]

I don't think that's the terminology we would use.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

A bogus claim? No?

[Kin Choi]

No. I think it's important.... Start off with our compliance continuum. Workplace hazards exist as the very nature of just the workplace—

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Oh, let me ask.... I'm sorry. I only have seven minutes.

[Kin Choi]

I'm sorry.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

From the 20% that are identified...from the ones that aren't identified, how many would have recommendations to act on a hazard from those other applications?

[Kin Choi]

I don't have the number in terms of that within the 20% that I think you're driving at.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

No, no, no. The 20% are identified as a reason to stop—

[Kin Choi]

As a danger—

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

It's the 80% that are being....