Human Resources Committee on Nov. 19th, 2013

[Lana Payne]

I can speak to that.

We've had numerous cases where workers after, particularly in the offshore oil industry, which isn't a federally regulated one but I'll speak to it, felt discouraged from reporting—that we would take care of this problem in the occupational health and safety committee in the workplace.

What you very often get in those committees is that things are discussed but not fully acted upon. It may take many, many months for this to happen.

We just had an inquiry into an incident where 17 people lost their lives in a helicopter crash in Newfoundland. What we found out was that we really need to pay attention to what the experts call the “Swiss cheese” model of health and safety in the workplace. The more gaps there are in terms of our ability to deal with hazards, to report problems, the more “paper safety” approach we have to things.

To me, that's what this legislation does: it turns safety into a paper exercise. Then sometimes the holes in the Swiss cheese line up and things happen. When you chip away at people's rights, it becomes another hole in the Swiss cheese.

I see this happening with this legislation in particular.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you.

It is proposed that subsection 127.1(7) be repealed. That provision gave the joint committee the power to stop dangerous work.

Do you think that taking away from the joint committee on health and safety in the workplace the power to stop a dangerous activity—even if it is not established that the tasks involved represent an immediate danger—will have an impact in the workplace?

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Can you give a very quick answer, please?

[Sari Sairanen]

Certainly.

The joint health and safety committee is the vehicle in the workplace where you have representation from both sides, in an egalitarian forum, to deal with the workplace issues. But now, when they're removed from that process, where do you have that internal responsibility where health and safety is everyone's responsibility? Now it's very unbalanced and lopsided.

So you need to have participation in that process, all the work parties equally, to ensure that you do have a healthy and safe culture in the workplace.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you.

Five minutes, Mr. Shory.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing this afternoon.

I did meet your president, Mr. Dias, this morning at our international trade committee. I'll tell you that I cannot say we saw eye to eye on the Canada-EU agreement, but perhaps in this meeting we can make some inroads—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

Not likely.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Well, maybe we can make some progress on this labour code issue.

But before I do that, I want to put some facts on the record. The fact is that Unifor is a merger of CAW and CEP.

[Lana Payne]

Right.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

The fact is that CEP...and you can disagree and put it on the record if you don't agree, but this is all research-based, during the presentation he made this morning. The fact is that CEP officially endorses the NDP. During his recent interview with iPolitics in August, Mr. Dias made some comments. One of those was, and I will quote, that “We will do what we can to make sure—”

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Ms. Sims.

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

On a point of order, Chair, you know, I'm looking at the point of the questioning here. I think whatever people's affiliations are, they have nothing to do with the subject matter that's being discussed here. We're here to talk about changes to the labour code.

I feel that this is a deliberate attempt to undermine the credibility of the witnesses. I think that is not fair to the witnesses who come here. Whatever their outside political affiliations are, when they come to this committee and sit here as witnesses, they're here on the topics that we called them for. They should not be put in a position where they have to comment with regard to questions like that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Mr. Armstrong, would you like to speak to the point of order?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Yes, it's on the point of order.

I'm assuming that Mr. Shory's time has been stopped.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Yes, it has.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

On this point of order, I think we have to give Mr. Shory an opportunity to connect what he is saying with....

He hasn't even had a chance to get to his question yet—to his question. I'm assuming he's trying to talk about some motivation for some of the comments made by Mr. Dias in connection with this legislation.

I think you have to give Mr. Shory at least a little bit of leeway so that he can get to his question.

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

Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I'm not going to entertain any more debate on this. This is turning into debate, and I don't want it to turn into debate.

I hear your point of order, and I hear your position on this.

I'll allow some latitude, but I'd ask Mr. Shory to get to his question. I believe if they are publicly held positions of any witnesses, and this would apply to any witnesses who would come with publicly held positions, it's the entitlement of any committee member, if it's on the public record, to ask those witnesses to confirm those facts.

That's my ruling.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That's exactly what I'm doing. I believe the public who will read this report has the right to know the affiliation, if there is any affiliation, of any witness.

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

Chair, on a point of order.

Chair, I'm not an experienced member of Parliament. I've only been a member of Parliament since 2011. But I've been a vice-chair and I've chaired meetings before. I believe a person's political affiliations have no role in the questions parliamentarians ask when they are questioning witnesses, especially when the political union president is not here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Excuse me. No more speakers to this. It's turning into debate.

I've made a ruling. The way I'm interpreting it, this is not about an individual. It's not about asking these witnesses, or any witnesses, their personal political position. It's the organization they're representing, like any organization. If another association came here, if the home builders of Canada came here and publicly took a position, I think it's fair for any committee member of any political stripe to state the facts of where those organizations stand.

We're not asking them about their personal political affiliations. That's my ruling. If anyone would like to challenge it, they're welcome to do that.

Proceed, Mr. Shory.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I said, it's my right as a committee member to know what position a witness stands on.

In iPolitics, Mr. Dias said that “the outlining issue...” in 2015 will be “how do we best defeat a Conservative”?

As an organization, is that Unifor’s mission?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

This is clearly not a question about the issue and the study we are having right now. We're talking about Bill C-4. We're talking about specific articles of this bill, about health and safety issues.

I think my honourable colleague here just wants to make political points and embarrass the witnesses. It's not fair and it's not the job of this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

My ruling stands. I will ask Mr. Shory to get to his questions on the bill.

As I said, my ruling is, to any organization that comes before this committee, that you will have the right to ask its position, if it is a publicly held position. It's not to ask an individual; I will rule against asking an individual. But I will rule on any organization that comes. There could be future meetings where there's obviously a public position held by an organization. It's fair; it's on the public record.

That's my ruling. If you'd like to challenge me on that, go ahead.