House of Commons Hansard #104 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workplace.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have in hand a petition from people throughout my constituency that points out that Canadians are overtaxed.
The petitioners demand that the Department of Human Resources Development account for the gross mismanagement of $3.2 billion annually. They call upon parliament for the immediate resignation of the Minister of Human Resources Development and that the auditor general conduct a full and independent inquiry into HRDC's management and accounting practices.
Pat O'Brien Liberal London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present three petitions signed by a number of my constituents.
The first petition calls on parliament to review the mandate of the CRTC and to allow for the licensing of religious broadcasters.
Pat O'Brien Liberal London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, the other two petitions are signed by hundreds of Canadians mostly in my riding but also in other ridings.
The petitioners urge parliament to fulfil the promise of the 1989 resolution of the House of Commons to end child poverty as soon as possible.
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in this House a petition bearing 3,436 signatures and relating to excessive petroleum prices.
The people in my area are well aware that the main reason for such prices is collusion between the refineries. They are asking the government to take concrete actions to regularize petroleum prices.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of thousands of petitioners from the Kamloops area. They point out that they have concerns regarding the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada which make it too easy for a person who has been convicted of a serious crime, such as murder, sexual assault or manslaughter, involving a term of imprisonment greater than five years, to obtain a release from custody pending the hearing of their appeal.
The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to prevent persons convicted of serious crimes from being released from custody pending the hearing of their appeal except in very exceptional circumstances.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, in another unrelated petition, the petitioners are distraught about the fact that gasoline prices have risen to 75.9 cents in Toronto and over 80 cents a litre in Quebec. There are extremely high costs right across the country.
The petitioners ask the federal government to take some action through some form of regulation so that consumers are not gouged at the pumps time and time again.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Scarborough—Rouge River Ontario
Liberal
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-13 in the name of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan is acceptable to the government and the documents are tabled immediately.
Motion No. P-13
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents, notes, minutes of meetings, briefings, e-mails, memos and reports concerning the independent multi-year financial audit and program review ordered by Health Canada concerning the allegations of improper use of government funding by the Board of Directors of Pedahbun Lodge and the Board's response to these allegations.
Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-13 in the name of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan be deemed to have been adopted?
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to be so kind as to call Motion No. P-29 in the name of the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.
Motion No. P-29
That a humble address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before the House copies of all private sector reports that pertain to Canada agri-infrastructure program, CAIP, projects, and any and all correspondence between the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food pertaining to CAIP expenditures and ministerial talking points issued by the above ministers or government members on their behalf that pertain to CAIP.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am informed as follows. In regard to the Canada agri-infrastructure program, CAIP, no correspondence between the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Transport exists, nor have any ministerial talking points been issued by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Transport or by government members on their behalf.
There are private sector reports that pertain to CAIP but they are of a voluminous character and would require an inordinate cost and length of time to prepare. However, the hon. member is welcome to visit the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration office in Regina where all of the reports can be gathered from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta for his perusal.
I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Gerry Ritz Reform Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, it seems a little onerous that the government can fund projects like this and then send us down the road to Regina to look at the results. I guess I would have to take that with a grain of salt, but I withdraw my motion. Or, do I understand that since the government will not table my motion, I could ask that it be transferred for debate?
Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Is it agreed that we transfer it for debate?
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I ask that other Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Is it agreed that the remaining Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers stand?
Claudette Bradshaw LiberalMinister of Labour
moved that Bill C-12, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part II) in respect of occupational health and safety, to make technical amendments to the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, it feels very good to rise today to begin third reading of Bill C-12. It feels good because we are coming to the end of a long journey. I want to express my gratitude to my friends on all sides of the House for their hard work on Bill C-12 and for the quick manner in which they handled the bill.
All members recognized that we are not dealing with just another labour bill but we are in fact talking about people's health and safety on the job. Their input was serious, their questions thoughtful, their concerns valid and their suggestions helpful. Further, I want to thank previous ministers who supported the review of part II.
I also want to acknowledge with gratitude the effort of the labour and management people who were charged with extremely demanding and complex tasks, first, to review the existing legislation and identify the issues that needed to be addressed and second, to come to a consensus on possible reform to part II.
They did their jobs exceptionally well and were able to devise consensus based proposals. That could not have been easy. Again I want to thank them for their perseverance, their seriousness of purpose and their openness to alternative approaches. They demonstrated as I have said numerous times that this country is blessed with durable and effective labour relations institutions and organizations and with professional, dedicated and prudent labour relations practitioners.
We have learned over the years that progress in occupational safety and health comes only when we, the government, employers and labour, work together. We have also learned that working together, teamwork, co-operation and partnership building are not just warm and fuzzy concepts but absolutely essential ingredients for effective action. We need each other's experience, resources and wisdom if significant declines in work related accidents, injuries and diseases are to be achieved.
Over the past couple of decades, many profound changes have occurred in the workplace, in the workforce and in the economy. The fundamental objective of our reforms is to ensure that the primary federal labour law responds to those changes.
Bill C-12 represents the second phase of our three-phase initiative to modernize the Canada Labour Code. Amendments to part I of the code, which deals with the conduct of industrial relations, received Royal Assent last year.
Part III of the code—dealing with labour standards—is being reviewed now. I hope to be able to bring forward amendments early next year.
Ever since 1985, when the last significant amendments to part II were passed by the House, there have been important changes in the way we organize and do our work. Some were welcome changes and some were very worrisome. The law cannot ignore those new realities. I know we made a good start with our amendments to part I.
I feel very positive about the bill before us today to amend part II, and the review of part III is proceeding well. It seems to me that the updating of the Canada Labour Code is a fitting way for legislators to launch the second century of the federal labour program.
Part II of the code is based on basic principles. One is that employees have certain rights when it comes to their health and safety. They have the right to know about workplace hazards, the right to participate in health and safety matters and the right to refuse dangerous work. In recognizing these rights, part II also takes care not to unduly infringe on the employer's right to manage the workplace.
A second principle is that the government must empower employees and employers to assume responsibility for the regulation of their workplaces. Employees and employers ought to be equipped with the means to identify and deal with health and safety issues in their own backyard, so to speak. Of course, this is not to say that the government has no responsibility for the health and safety of employees, or that there is no room for direct government intervention, but the obligation for achieving a safe workplace rests with both the employer and the employee. Those people ought to have the authority and the primary responsibility to address those issues because they are the ones who will feel the consequences of inaction on health and safety issues.
Bill C-12 not only adheres to but also gives further expressions to these fundamental principles. How it does so will become evident as I review its main features.
The bill brings in several important changes to part II, but there are four that I think are especially noteworthy.
First, the legislation provides for an innovative, new internal complaint resolution process, by which the parties themselves, not a government officer, will solve their workplace health and safety problems.
Under this new process, if an employee has a complaint, the employee and the supervisor are required to try to resolve the matter between them as soon as possible. If they cannot do so, they can refer the problem to the workplace health and safety committee or, in the case of smaller organizations, to the health and safety representative, and the matter will then be jointly investigated.
If the parties cannot come to an agreement, or if the employer does not accept the results of the investigation or fails to act on the matter, then and only then will a government official intervene. When appropriate, he or she may intervene simply by requesting that the parties try again to resolve the issue themselves.
Of course, the health and safety officer retains the authority to act decisively if a danger exists or if the parties cannot come to an agreement. But I think we can all see the wisdom in giving the parties every opportunity to settle their problems themselves.
Secondly, the bill also strengthens the local workplace health and safety committees in a number of ways. For instance, they will be able to do workplace inspections and to participate in the implementation of changes that might affect health and safety, including changes that pertain to work processes and procedures. Where there is no corporate health and safety policy committee, they will be involved in the development of occupational health and safety policy. If this is not local empowerment, I do not know what is.
A third important feature of this bill is the requirement to establish a joint health and safety policy committee at the corporate level in enterprises with 300 or more employees. These committees will meet at least quarterly to address issues that have company-wide application. They will participate in the development of health and safety policies for the organizations. They will deal quickly with matters referred to them by the workplace committees. They will participate in studies, inspections and investigations pertaining to occupational health and safety and they will assist in planning changes to enhance workplace health and safety. They will also be able to request from the employer any information necessary to identify actual or potential workplace hazards, and they will have full access to all of the government and employer reports, studies and tests related to the health and safety of employees.
The range of issues that the policy committees can deal with is very wide and includes prevention and awareness raising activities. By requiring these committees we will ensure that health and safety issues receive the attention they deserve from the people who have the authority to make things happen. The committees will see to it that health and safety priorities make it to the corporate agenda.
Their existence will also be tremendously reassuring to employees who, for whatever reason, feel that the safety of the workplace is of little concern to the higher ups. For the local health and safety committees, the new policy committees are likely to be a motivating factor because they will see that senior people in the organization take occupational safety and health just as seriously as they do.
A fourth change to the bill is consistent with the Government of Canada's plans to encourage family-friendly workplaces.
This change expands the employee's right to refuse dangerous work, by giving to a female employee who believes that her job conditions pose a danger to her, the fetus or the baby she is nursing the right to leave the workplace until she has had a reasonable opportunity to obtain a medical certificate.
While she is seeking this certificate, her employer will have the right to assign the woman to other duties or require her to remain at work in a safe location, and she will still be entitled to the normal pay and benefits attached to her job.
If her physician determines that there is no danger to her, the fetus or child, the woman's right to cease her work will no longer be in force. If the physician confirms the risk, she will be able to turn to the protection of part III of the code.
Those are the major reforms that Bill C-12 makes to part II of the Canada Labour Code. I believe they are sound, progressive and meaningful, and that they will be effective and help to restore the downward trend in workplace casualties in the federal jurisdiction.
Before I conclude, I would like to draw the members' attention to some of the other important changes that this bill will make to part II.
First, the right to refuse will be clarified in a couple of ways. All employees who have been prevented from working because a colleague has exercised a refusal will be paid until the end of the shift.
The employee exercising the right of refusal will be paid until the matter has been resolved In addition, to ensure that the right to refuse is not used frivolously, the employer will be able to discipline an employee if he can demonstrate that the right to refuse was abused.
Over the last several years, we have become aware of the importance of ergonomics to the prevention of a wide range of physical ailments. Those of you who have spent time in front of a computer monitor will know what I mean here. We have, therefore, inserted a provision in the bill that will allow us to address ergonomic standards.
Finally, in response to the growing problem of workplace rage, we have included a clause that requires employers to take the necessary steps to prevent and protect against violence in the workplace.
This bill will inject new energy into our efforts to reduce workplace casualties. It provides important new mechanisms to address health and safety issues. It reaffirms the faith of the federal government in the capacity of labour and management to solve the health and safety problems that they encounter in their own workplace.
Occupational health and safety is a very important matter. The extent to which we succeed in protecting our employees from hazards and diseases is a measure of our social progress, our civility and our sense of what is important.
History seems to show that progressive workplace health and safety policy is also good economic policy. Let history show that, as this country soared to new economic heights, its record in reducing workplace casualties was second to none.
Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-12 finally at third reading, a bill which may have become known as the Friday file because of its habit of coming up on Fridays every time it came before the House. I would like to thank my colleagues who stood in for me from time to time to make sure that someone from our party addressed the bill.
We are at third reading of Bill C-12, which will amend part II of the Canada Labour Code. It deals specifically with workplace health and safety for employees and businesses which fall under federal jurisdiction.
Workers, managers and even federal bureaucrats I am sure will all breathe a sigh of relief when Bill C-12 receives third reading and goes to the other place. Bill C-12 is an example of a consensus agreement that has been some 10 years in the making. I do not know why it should necessarily have taken 10 years. I am sure that the process could have been hastened a lot. I would admonish the government for taking so terribly long to get this done. We have heard about the possibility of amendments to part II of the labour code for some time, and finally we see that it has come to fruition.
I do not think that labour legislation should ever be changed on a whim. I am pleased that the government, when it decided to change it, went to the stakeholders, who realized that since these amendments were needed to reflect a changing workplace they should all work together to develop a viable solution.
I was also a bit disappointed that the government refused to negotiate on the labour-management consensus that called for a two tier appeal process. The appeal process in the bill does not meet their needs. This came through loud and clear during committee hearings.
In the current statute, decisions made by the regional safety officer can be appealed to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Under the streamlined provisions set out in this bill, the mandate of the appeals officer has been strengthened. Any decision rendered by the appeals officer will now be final, and the only recourse is to take the issue to the Federal Court of Canada.
The Canadian Alliance supports the removal of unnecessary red tape, but in this case a two tier appeal process could save the parties the hassle and expense of bringing a disputed directive to the Federal Court of Canada.
When the minister's officials appeared before the committee studying Bill C-12, they indicated that over the last 10 years about 1,800 directives had been issued by their officers. Of those there were only 179 appeals, or about 10%. Fifteen of them were appealed to the federal court and only two were because the appeals officer's ruling was overturned by CIRB. In light of the small number of appeals, the burden on the CIRB certainly would not be an onerous one. Yet the government chose to deny the stakeholders a second level of appeal.
If only 10% of the directives are ever appealed to the federal court, the inclusion of a two tier appeal process could cut the number of appeals to the federal court considerably. It may not be as lucrative for the lawyers, but it could save labour and management considerable time and expense.
The successful tripartite consultative process that spawned this legislation will hopefully bring about regulations that are equally acceptable to all parties. Indeed, when we were researching the bill and when we talked to stakeholders, we found very little resistance to what was in the bill from anyone.
Consultation with stakeholders does not just mean that the government gives a few representatives a chance to present their concerns and then unilaterally imposes the Liberal will. Unfortunately this is what happened in the case of the trucking industry. The government decided that this safety apparatus was essential and would be implemented according to its timetable without concern or regard for the impact on truck owners, drivers or operators.
All too often government consultation is just as one-sided as that. For instance, when the minister decided to implement the fair wage schedules it made little difference that the schedules were not necessary and had not been activated in years. Apparently it also made little difference that the consultation process was flawed. The fact that the surveys were botched did not seem to matter much to the minister either. In the end, it is the Canadian taxpayer who will pay the higher cost for contracts carried out at federal sites.
The success of the consultative process employed in developing Bill C-12 should be extended to all legislative and regulatory areas under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. Bill C-12 is now on its way to the other place. The focus now turns to the much anticipated overhaul of part III of the labour code. The minister mentioned that in her speech. We could only hope that the minister and her officials will endeavour to reach the same kind of consensus obtained with the health and safety amendments.
Part III of the code may perhaps have the greatest impact on everyday lives of workers in the federally regulated sector. Amendments to this part of the code should stand as a model for the provinces to emulate. They should not be rushed into the House as a pre-election ploy as we saw with the health and safety amendments back in 1997. The government tabled those changes in April 1997 just days before the election was called. I cannot understand why it would take more than two years before Bill C-12 was introduced again.
I hope the minister will learn from Bill C-12 that she can bring in whatever it is on part III of the code and that we can discuss it and repair it where it needs to be.
Thanks to the groundwork laid by the tripartite group Bill C-12 was reasonable. It met with little opposition from any party in the House. We in the Canadian Alliance willingly co-operated at all stages of the debate. I ask the minister to ensure that it be proclaimed without further delay.
Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC
Mr. Speaker, some speeches are uniquely important and meaningful. The speech I am making today in this House is in fact one such important speech.
Unfortunately, and clearly, the federal government does not see it that way. For the Minister of Labour and the government opposite, Bill C-12 is just one bill among many, period.
We will remember that Bill C-12 is the in-depth reform of part II of the Canada Labour Code and, more particularly, as it concerns occupational health and safety.
Members will no doubt recall that at first reading the Bloc Quebecois supported Bill C-12, since it is the practice of the Bloc Quebecois, in its great wisdom, to give the government the benefit of the doubt when it introduces bills that are constructive in spirit and intent. I nevertheless added, however, that it was vital the federal government be open-minded so that certain amendments to Bill C-12 to be proposed by the Bloc Quebecois could be made. Absolutely nothing happened. Utter nothingness.
The Bloc Quebecois introduced very reasonable amendments that substantially improved the bill. These changes took nothing away from the substance of Bill C-12, on the contrary.
The Bloc Quebecois introduced amendments so that the process for hiring health and safety officers and filling many other positions could be neutral under the Public Service Employment Act.
In addition, we also presented amendments to enable pregnant and nursing women to take preventive withdrawal worthy of such a name. We introduced many other amendments as well. But, as I said earlier, the minister sat idly and remained unmoved by our amendments. Yet, our goal was only to make Bill C-12 better suited to the new realities of the workplaces governed by the Canada Labour Code. But, as is its habit, the government turned a deaf ear. It just wanted to go it alone through the legislative process. This is what happened.
So, for all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will, at third reading, have no choice but to oppose Bill C-12. I will get back to these reasons and provide more in depth explanations later on in my speech. But first, I would like to paint a picture of the situation regarding occupational health and safety for workers subject to part II of the Canada Labour Code.
I will begin this gloomy account by quoting from the brief submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress, the CLC, to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations, when it reviewed Bill C-12. Here is what it says on page 5 of the French version:
Canada is the only jurisdiction where the rate of injury has in fact increased during most of the last decade.
The ratio of federal inspectors to the number of workers being inspected is among the worst in Canada.
The federal government waited over 15 years before reforming part II of the Canada Labour Code. Meanwhile, however, every year in Canada some 800,000 people experience a work-related accident or illness. Of that number, more than 750 die, which represents an average of three deaths per day.
In 1997, an average of one in sixteen employees was hurt on the job, the equivalent of one every 9.1 seconds of working hours. One in thirty-one was injured seriously enough to be off work at least one day, which means that there is one accident with lost time every eighteen seconds in the workplace.
In 1996, 38 deaths from occupational illness or accident were reported in industries under federal jurisdiction. The figure was the same in 1995. One death from an on-the-job accident occurs every seven days on average, or approximately one worker in 20,000.
The rate of accidents resulting in disability rose from 15 per million hours worked in 1995 to 15.24 in 1996. The 1996 level was not as high as the 15.44 recorded in 1994, and is markedly lower than the 1993 level of 16.99.
The economic cost of these accidents is very high. Compensation payments to victims or their families total some $5 billion per year.
If we add on the indirect costs of accidents, the figure doubles to close to $10 billion. We are very much aware that these figures do not take into account the incalculable pain and suffering experienced by victims and their families.
In the light of these statistics, it is high time the Minister of Labour did something. I do not know how the present government feels to have so many deaths on its conscience. It would appear that this reality does not overly disturb the Minister of Labour.
In fact, since the beginning of the legislative process for Bill C-12, the minister has shown very little interest in the reform of Part II of the Canada Labour Code. We know that the minister, for personal reasons, was unable to appear before the committee to explain her bill. We understand that perfectly.
However, what explanation is there for the fact that the minister did not take advantage of report stage in the House to come and explain her bill in order to make up for her absence before the parliamentary committee? Instead, it was her parliamentary secretary, who is in the House now, who spoke at report stage.
To top it all, and this really shows how interested the Minister of Labour and the government are in this whole reform of Part II of the Canada Labour Code, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles had to make a point of calling the Minister of Labour to order here in the House because she was not listening and was showing no interest at all in the remarks of my colleague, who was in the process of offering some very enlightening explanations about Bill C-12, specifically with respect to pregnant and nursing women and the bill's serious deficiencies in that regard.
With this federal government, one more bad move will not make any difference. Taking Bill C-12 as an example, I am going to show just how illogical the federal government is.
During one of the committee's meetings on Bill C-12, the Bloc Quebecois presented an amendment to improve the definition of the word “danger”. We took absolutely nothing away from the definition. On the contrary, we improved it and made it more precise by setting out in it that the sources of danger should not affect pregnant or nursing women.
To our great surprise, the Bloc Quebecois amendment was passed at the stage of clause by clause examination in committee. The Liberal member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik even supported the Bloc Quebecois amendment with great pride.
However, imagine my surprise at learning that the minister also introduced an amendment at report stage thereby destroying the Bloc Quebecois amendment in order to reinstate the original definition of “danger” in Bill C-12. Does that make sense to you?
One day the Liberals say yes and a few days later, on the same issue, they say no.
In response to a question by my colleague, the member for Longueuil, the Minister of Labour said—and note the insipid, meaningless and uninterested explanation the Minister of Labour gave to my colleague—and I quote:
The Bloc Quebecois amendment concerning the definition of “danger” is addressed by part III of the Labour Code, and this will be discussed by employees and employers.
First, how can the minister claim that the definition of “danger” is covered in part III of the Canada Labour Code, when she said later on in her answer that employees and employers will discuss it? That is in the future. Are we going to have to wait another 15 years to discuss it, as was the case with the reform of part II?
This response proves just how little the Minister of Labour knows her Canada Labour Code, since part III contains absolutely no reference to danger for pregnant and nursing women.
The minister is totally disinterested and uninformed about the reform of part II of the Canada Labour Code, and of the Canada Labour Code as a whole. I would advise the minister to do her homework as quickly as possible, because she is misleading the House, and this is totally unacceptable.
The Bloc Quebecois also proposed amendments to clause 132 so that pregnant or nursing women would be eligible for a true preventative withdrawal. Again, the minister misled the House in a reply to my colleague, the hon. member for Longueuil. The minister said, and I quote:
—this is available to pregnant and nursing women under section 132 of the Canada Labour Code (Part II). It was negotiated for seven years with employees and employers.
One thing is clear and the minister knows it full well: there is a consensus on clause 132 of Bill C-12, which deals with pregnant and nursing employees, but that consensus is clearly to the effect that clause 132 is largely inadequate, and I will demonstrate it.
During the hearings of the committee, various interest groups invited not only by the Bloc Quebecois but also by the government came to express their views. Here is what these groups had to say about clause 132 of Bill C-12, entitled “Pregnant and Nursing Employees”.
In its brief, the CAW, one of the major unions representing workers at the federal level, described clause 132 as “not going far enough, however, and lacking clarity”.
According to the Public Service Alliance of Canada's brief, the amendments to clause 132 “do not go far enough to provide the necessary health and safety protection for these workers”.
The CSN, which represents more than 235,000 workers in Quebec, said the following about clause 132 “This text is incongruous and renders the entire provision meaningless”. Further on in its brief it adds “This text does not create a right but rather a problem for pregnant workers”.
The Association des médecins du réseau public en santé au travail du Québec submitted a brief over the signatures of 13 occupational health and safety specialist physicians in which the following comment was made about preventive withdrawal under the federal legislation “In our opinion, clause 132 of Bill C-12 is much too timid and will not protect the workers who need protection most”.
Katherine Lippel, a law professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal, and one of the leading Canadian specialists in preventive withdrawal from the workplace, commented “Bill C-12 as it now stands does not provide for protective reassignment that includes the right to benefits when reassignment is not available. In failing to do so, it proposes a right that is really an empty shell”.
This same consensus was present at a symposium on the health of women in the workplace held from March 26 to 28, 1998 at the Université du Québec à Montréal. Health Canada was one of the sponsors of that event, which was attended by experts and organizations from Quebec and from Canada. The following is a partial list.
For Quebec: Gisèle Bourret, head of the women's affairs service of the CEQ; Maria DeKoninck, professor, department of social and preventive medicine, Laval University; Jocelyne Everell, union adviser with the health-safety-environment service at the CSN; Carole Gingras, director of women's affairs at the FTQ; Danielle Hébert, co-ordinator of women's affairs service at the CSN; Nicole Lepage, occupational health and safety adviser at the CEQ; Katherine Lippel, professor of legal sciences at UQAM; Donna Mergler, professor of biological sciences at the University of Montreal; Jean-Pierre Néron, union adviser, occupational health and safety, at the FTQ.
For Canada: Kathleen Connors, president, National Federation of Nurses' Unions; Diane Ponée, director, policy and planning analysis, Women's Health Bureau, Health Canada; Michelle Simms, policy and program advisor, Women's Bureau, Strategy and Coordination Unit, Human Resources Development Canada, and Cathy Walker, national health and safety director, CAW.
For British Columbia: Ellen Balka, associate professor, department of communications, Simon Fraser University; Micke Koehoorn, researcher, department of health care and epidemiology of the University of British Columbia.
Equally credible experts and organizations came from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Newfoundland and even Sweden.
At the conclusion of the conference, the participants agreed on a plan of action entitled “Improving the Health of Women in the Workplace”. Everyone supported this action plan and reached the same conclusion. It warrants attention. I quote the document:
Legislation in all jurisdictions, federal and provincial, should provide for the protective reassignment of pregnant or nursing women, if their working conditions are hazardous to their health or that of their fetus or nursing infant.
Such programs should draw on Quebec legislation, which provides for reassignment to a job presenting no hazard...They should include, when worker reassignment is not possible, the right to compensation equivalent to that related to incapacity as the result of an accident on the job.
Once again, Quebec is at the forefront in social policy. Unfortunately, this cannot be said of the Minister of Labour and her government. However, with Bill C-12, the minister could show her open-mindedness and her concern for the health of women and more particularly those who are pregnant or nursing. But this is not the case.
The Bloc Quebecois is asking the minister to follow the example of the Health Canada officials and the various women and agencies present at this conference and to allow pregnant or nursing women covered by the Canada Labour Code the same benefits as pregnant women covered by Quebec's occupational health and safety legislation.
This request comes not just from the Bloc Quebecois, but from the vast majority of occupational health and safety agencies and experts in Quebec and in Canada. The consensus is there: now the minister must take action.
We can safely say that the real consensus around clause 132 has to do with the fact that it falls short, requiring the minister and her senior officials to go back to the drawing board.
Through its proposed amendment to clause 132, the Bloc Quebecois seeks to end this two-tier regime, which leaves women in Quebec who work under federal legislation less well protected than those who work under Quebec's legislation.
Women working under Quebec's legislation who withdraw for preventive reasons are paid during the first week by their employer, and thereafter by the CSST at 90% of their net salary. All workers are thus not treated equally in Quebec. This is a good example of the problems encountered by Quebec when it tries to establish a comprehensive occupational or family strategy, or when it tries to reconcile occupational and family considerations.
How can the Minister of Labour say that pregnant or nursing women have the right to preventive withdrawal with financial compensation? This is just smoke and mirrors.
Clause 132 of Bill C-12 gives a woman the right to refuse to work if she believes that this may constitute a risk for herself or the unborn child. She will continue to be paid and to retain all benefits until such time as she obtains a medical opinion as to whether or not there is a risk.
As soon as this is obtained, she can no longer make use of clause 132(1). That is it. From that point on, the expectant mother has two unacceptable choices: shorten her maternity leave, or work in conditions that are a danger to her health or her baby's health.
Finally, the only real financial compensation to which pregnant or nursing workers are entitled under federal legislation is the maternity leave given under employment insurance. Comparing this to the CSST program, this is a pittance.
This employment insurance program discriminates against pregnant women as far as maternity leave is concerned. Employment insurance provides protection for maternity leave but access to the program is tied to hours worked. The requirement is a minimum of 600 hours worked over the past year; as well, the amount will be between 55% and 50% of her earnings, as opposed to Quebec's 90%.
As well, it must be kept in mind that, if a pregnant woman has to take several weeks of maternity leave prior to delivery because her workplace is dangerous for her and her fetus, those weeks will be deducted after the birth, which means that the new mother will not only have to face a substantial loss of income, but she will also have a shorter time to be at home with her beloved new-born.
When the Minister of Labour states in this House that clause 132 of Bill C-12 provides withdrawal from the work place for preventive purposes with financial compensation equal to that available in Quebec, this is quite simply misleading the House. Nothing more.
I am not the only one who thinks so. All unions and all experts who appeared before the committee said the same: the preventive withdrawal allowed at the federal level is far from sufficient.
It is impossible to understand the position of this government on the treatment of pregnant and nursing women when we realize that 800,000 people annually are injured or become sick in the exercise of their duties. Of this number, over 750 die as a result, a figure that represents an average of three deaths a day.
Why then make a point of swelling the statistics? According to Statistics Canada, in 1993, women represented 43% of paid employees, compared to 35% in 1971. From this fact alone, the number of women who are victims of accidents on the job has also increased.
At the moment, pregnant women tend to stay at work longer before they give birth, because their financial situation is more often than not precarious. In addition, they return to work earlier after the birth of their child.
Another consequence of this new reality is that women today tend to have fewer children and at an older age. The government is well aware of this fact. So why is it insisting on pushing future mothers governed by the Canada Labour Code into totally unacceptable misery?
When will this government assume its responsibilities and do what the interest groups have been asking, namely, provide pregnant and nursing women covered by the Canada Labour Code working in Quebec with the possibility of protective reassignment as Quebec has?
The Bloc Quebecois was not yet even in the House of Commons when our leader, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, tabled, on June 1, 1993, an amendment to Bill C-101 introduced by the Progressive Conservative government then in power. This bill was also a reform of the Canada Labour Code. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that federally employed pregnant or nursing workers would have the right to preventive withdrawal under the legislation of the province in which they work. This is exactly what the Bloc Quebecois is seeking in this amendment in the year 2000.
Through the irony of fate, or power, the Liberal Party of Canada, which was then in opposition, supported the amendment brought forward by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the future leader of the Bloc Quebecois. When I say that this government is basically dishonest, and I would even say acting in bad faith, here is the proof today.
Now that the Liberal Party is in power and the idea of actually giving pregnant or nursing employees the right to preventive withdrawal—a right they have in Quebec—does not come from within the Liberal Party, the federal Liberals have voted against. This is unjustified and unjustifiable.
The Bloc Quebecois amendment is a completely reasonable motion, which imposes nothing, because it is clearly stated in our amendment that there should—this is an obligation—be negotiations between the federal and provincial governments.
All that the Bloc Quebecois wanted was for pregnant or nursing employees governed by the Canada Labour Code to be able with complete dignity and safety, not just physical but financial, to experience one of the most extraordinary events imaginable, that being pregnancy and the birth of a new being. Unfortunately, for the federal government, pregnancy is something that is completely trivialized, not to say neglected.
This bad faith and lack of conscience is all the more evident because what the Bloc Quebecois is asking for in its amendment to clause 132 is nothing extraordinary or unusual, nor any special privilege for pregnant workers. No, what the Bloc Quebecois is calling for is fairness and equity.
I would, moreover, like to remind hon. members that, between 1981 and 1988, employers under federal jurisdiction were paying the portion that corresponded to the CSST preventive withdrawal allowance, since the courts had not yet reached a decision on the constitutionality of that program. Some women who came under federal jurisdiction even received CSST benefits for preventive withdrawal. The system does work. It has proven itself several times in the past.
Another proof that there can indeed be agreements between the federal and the provincial levels as far as financial compensation is concerned: in Quebec, people employed by the federal government who have an occupational illness or injury are referred to the CSST for compensation purposes. I would invite the Minister of Labour and all of the hon. members across the way to look at section 4 of Quebec's government employees compensation legislation.
In Bill C-12, clause 140(2) reads as follows:
140.(2) The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into an agreement with any province or any provincial body specifying the terms and conditions under which a person employed by that province or provincial body may act as a health and safety officer—
I could cite a lot of other examples where agreements have been signed between the federal government and the government of a province on a given provision of law. Well, then, with the government talking about its flexible federalism, why is there no flexibility on the preventive withdrawal of pregnant or nursing workers under federal jurisdiction? What is the federal government afraid of?
There is a consensus among interest groups clearly advocating substantial improvement in federal preventive withdrawal conditions. As I have just shown, the system works. The Bloc Quebecois amendment now permits the federal government and the provinces to negotiate in good faith an administrative and financial agreement giving female workers under federal jurisdiction recourse to the legislation on preventive withdrawal of the province they work in.
All of the elements are in place to permit Quebec women working for in federal jurisdiction to be on the same footing as their colleagues covered by Quebec legislation on occupational health and safety. The federal government no longer has an excuse. So why this inaction on the part of the Minister of Labour and the federal government?
This government's attitude is not only shameful, it may turn out to be criminal, since this government is threatening the life of certain women and their unborn children. And this is unacceptable. Count on me and the Bloc Quebecois to remind the people of Quebec and my riding of the Laurentides of this.
The Bloc Quebecois has now been fighting seven years on behalf of pregnant and nursing women. This issue is important to us. I can assure you that the Bloc Quebecois will continue determinedly to fight for just and equality. Women of Quebec and Canada, the Bloc Quebecois is behind you.
The fight continues, and I invite you to join us in getting this Liberal government and its Minister of Labour to understand that pregnant and nursing women under federal jurisdiction are also entitled to work in an environment free of all danger. This is a matter of humanity, health, respect, fairness and justice.