Human Resources Committee on Nov. 19th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I call the meeting to order. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome.

This is meeting number 4 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today we are continuing our study on the subject matter of clauses 176 to 238, divisions 5 and 6 of part 3 of Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

For our first hour today we have witnesses here from the department, Mr. Kin Choi and Ms. Brenda Baxter.

I will turn the floor over to our officials for their presentation.

[Kin Choi, Assistant Deputy Minister, Labour Program, Compliance, Operations and Program Development, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for inviting us.

I am happy to be appearing before you as the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Labour Program. I am joined by my colleague Brenda Baxter, Director General of the Workplace Directorate.

For over 100 years now, the labour program has been protecting the rights and the well-being of both workers and employers in the federally regulated sectors. This includes creating and maintaining safe and healthy workplaces.

The changes that are being proposed in part 3, division 5, of Bill C-4 will strengthen the longstanding commitment even more.

The role of the Labour Program is to support workplace parties in order to enable them to meet their obligations and ensure that the Canadian Labour Code is respected.

I think we—and I mean the larger “we” in the federal jurisdictions—do a pretty good job overall. For example, the number of disabling injuries in the industry under federal jurisdiction has steadily declined by some 22% from 2007 to 2011, but we certainly need to do more, as every accident is one too many.

Here are the amendments to the Canada Labour Code that we're proposing: first, to strengthen the internal responsibility system; second, to clarify the definition of danger; and third, confer to the Minister of Labour the authority to delegate powers, duties, and functions to health and safety officers.

These amendments will place the onus on resolving workplace safety issues where it belongs: with employers and employees. Specifically, workplace committees and health and safety representatives will have a greater role to play in resolving refusal-to-work situations.

The new process would enhance the internal responsibility system, which would improve protection for Canadian workers and allow the labour program to better focus our attention on critical issues affecting the health and safety of Canadians in their workplaces.

Amendments are proposed to clarify the definition of danger, since over the last 10 years over 80% of refusals to work have ended with no danger decisions, even accounting for appeals.

That has no impact on employees' right to refuse dangerous work. That is a fundamental right that will remain in the Canadian Labour Code.

Those amendments will also help us increase the support we provide to health and safety officers, in addition to promoting consistent decision making across the country.

The Minister of Labour would have the authority to delegate powers, duties, and functions to health and safety officers, who would continue to do their important job of ensuring that workplaces are fair, safe, and productive. This is not about cutting costs, and it's certainly not about reducing the number of health and safety officers. These changes will simply ensure that the time of health and safety officers is used more proactively and effectively to enforce our regulations and to promote prevention.

It's important to point out that the fundamental rights and the protection mechanisms set out in the code will remain unchanged. The amendments are aimed at simplifying the procedures and practices in order to accelerate and increase the quality of decisions and results. The recourse mechanism will remain accessible to all parties.

Again, let me reiterate that fundamental rights and protections for employees remain enshrined in the code.

We are convinced that the changes we are proposing will improve outcomes for the workplace.

We would be pleased to respond to your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

The first round of questions are five-minute rounds because we are a split session.

We'll go to Madam Sims.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I'm just taken aback, Chair, because I believe the first round is still always seven minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Just let me ask.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I think a split round is when we take the one hour and we split that even further.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I did take a look at the routine orders before coming to the meeting, and I know you're right about that; I just looked down and it said five minutes on the sheet that's been prepared by the clerk's office. We'll go to what I believe I read earlier today, which is the seven-minute round.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you.

It's one of the few times we are in agreement. All our brain cells are working at about the same level today. That's so nice.

I have a number of questions. First of all, thank you for coming to make the presentation to us today.

Despite the fact that I've heard your assurances that fundamental rights will remain and protection will remain intact, as you know, there are a lot of concerns about the changes proposed here. We see the changes as far-reaching. They will directly affect the health and safety of Canadian workers, including limiting how an employee may use his or her right to refuse work if he or she feels threatened. None of these changes were announced in the budget, and we have not heard of calls from stakeholders to change the health and safety provisions of the Canada Labour Code.

My questions are, one, could you clarify for the committee what the impetus was for these changes? Did you consult with organizations and unions? If so, how many employers and how many unions? Could you provide us with a list of which stakeholders were consulted on the changes to part 3, division 5, and when they were consulted? Were any discussion papers prepared by Employment and Social Development or the labour program, and if so, can they be tabled for the committee?

These are really some very direct questions that I'm asking for some specifics on.

[Brenda Baxter, Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

To start with, I want to reiterate that the health and safety of workers is a priority for the government, and the right of employees to refuse dangerous work is paramount and remains in the legislation. There is no intent to restrict the right to refuse dangerous work.

The rationale of the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code is responding to feedback regarding the legislation, aligning the definition of danger to the working interpretation of danger in case law, and ensuring that workplace parties are more involved in the work refusal process, given that over the last 10 years, 80% of refusals to work were determined to be situations of no danger. We did rely on particular information, such as our administrative data and metrics. We have a quality assurance process in place, and we get feedback from our officers, as well as feedback from time to time from our stakeholders, and we did look at the amount of proactive work that our officers undertake, understanding that the time they spend focusing on working with high-risk industrial sectors will result in fewer accidents and injuries.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Because time is so limited and I only have seven minutes, how many groups and how many unions were consulted, if any? Just briefly, please.

[Brenda Baxter]

As I mentioned, it's an accumulation of administrative data. We have regular discussions with our stakeholders.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you.

Was a report or a discussion paper written on this, and if so, can it be presented to the committee? Not now, but when you get back.

[Brenda Baxter]

No, we don't have a discussion paper, but as I mentioned, we have been looking at our administrative data with regard to refusals to work, and this information has been provided to our stakeholders.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much. If we could have that data as well, that would be good.

I'm asking through the chair; I'm not asking for a special favour.

In how many of the 80% work refusals that resulted in the decisions of “no danger” did health and safety officers also issue directions or assurances of voluntary compliance because violations of the code were found?

[Brenda Baxter]

Our administrative data doesn't allow us to make that direct link.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I would suggest to you that is a major link. Having worked in this area in a unionized workplace—in the area of health and safety—and having sat on a committee, I really think that data about voluntary compliance is critical for you to have.

If that data can be extracted, I would certainly like us to have it at this committee, if possible.

[Kin Choi]

I think it's an important point you raise, that our officers are out there working, and as part of their process they discover other things. Part of the change is that they can do more of that proactive work and discover the problems before they happen.

It's often very difficult and unfair for health and safety officers when they are looking at a refusal process—and you can appreciate the refusal process has a sense of urgency to it—that they don't have the opportunity to spend the time they need to prevent.... That's where we are trying to put the emphasis with these changes.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I heard you saying that, and I have to take you at your word that there is no intention to reduce, that fundamental rights and protections will remain intact.

My question is, if that is so, how can you assure all of us sitting around this table that the reductions wouldn't include the 20% of the types of work refusals where danger was found?

[Kin Choi]

I'm not sure I follow your question, Madam Sims.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

If these measures are not intended to refuse dangerous work...even by the numbers you have put out, 80% of the works resulted in decisions of there being no danger. So how do the measures you're now proposing ensure that the reductions wouldn't include the 20% of the work refusals where danger was found?

[Kin Choi]

I think it's important to start by saying that the right to refuse dangerous work remains in the code, so it's not going to take away from people their ability to have that refusal process. The rights of employees to know about hazards in the workplace, the rights of employees to participate in protection from hazards in the workplace, and their right to refuse dangerous work remains.

Going forward, the number of complaints will still be investigated. But the process has changed, and we're hoping the process will improve the quality of decisions. We will still have dangerous situations, and hazards in the workplace will remain, but we'll spend more time allowing our officers to ensure compliance, maintain prevention practices, and promote our compliance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

That's the end of this round, Madam Sims.

Now we'll move on to Ms. McLeod.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the officials.

One of the comments in your opening statement that really stands out in my mind, and it is true to what I believe, is that you're convinced the changes are going to improve outcomes. I think everyone at this table agrees that we want to actually improve outcomes. I don't think there is anyone who would say otherwise. I think that's a very important statement.

I think there's a lot of misinformation out there, and I really think we need to get some quick details on the public record in terms of what we are doing and what we actually aren't going to be doing. You did speak to this briefly. Is this in any way going to limit a worker's right to refuse dangerous work?

[Brenda Baxter]

No, it's not. The right for a worker to refuse remains and is enshrined in the code.

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

Thank you.

Is this going to reduce the number of health and safety officers?