[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 10, 1995
.1544 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Order, please. I'd like to welcome members of the committee. This afternoon we shall begin our study of the main estimates of Human Resources Development Canada.
.1545
It is our pleasure to have with us the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, Minister of Labour, who will be presenting to us the Labour Program of the main estimates of the Department of Human Resources Development. She is accompanied by officials of the Department whom she will introduce before making her statement.
Ms Robillard, you have the floor. We have about an hour and a half for our meeting this afternoon, that is until 5:00 p.m.
You have the floor.
The Honourable Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm accompanied today by the Assistant Deputy Minister (Labour) of the Department of Human Resources Development, Mr. Lahey; my Executive Assistant, Mr. Marc St-Pierre; Mr. David Good, Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial and Administrative Services, Human Resources Development; and Mr. Warren Edmonston, Director General of the Mediation and Conciliation Service of the department.
Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be here today to discuss with you the work of the labour component of Human Resources Development Canada.
We intend to review with you the recent accomplishments and activities of the Labour Program and then to identify our priorities for the next year or so. Afterwards we will be happy to answer your questions.
[English]
As you will recall, the last time we met we discussed back-to-work legislation to end a work stoppage in the railway industry. The government acted as it did because the economic damage resulting from the stoppage could have been substantial. It was a very difficult decision, but it was unavoidable if the national interest was to be protected.
For the same reason, the government had to intervene in the dispute between B.C. waterfront foremen and their employers.
I have announced the terms of reference for an industrial inquiry commission and appointed two well-qualified commissioners, who will report back to me in four months from now. They have been mandated to examine industrial relations in the longshoring, grain-handling, and other related operations at west coast ports. They will also make recommendations to improve labour-management relations and reduce the future risk of general work stoppages.
I want to make it very clear to the members of the committee that I do not intend to ask Parliament to become involved in labour disputes on a regular basis. I remain a firm believer in our collective bargaining process, which places responsibility for dispute settlement squarely on the shoulders of the parties concerned. This is, without question, the preferable way of settling collective bargaining disputes.
It should be noted that a number of important bargaining groups were able to resolve their differences without a stoppage, either on their own or with the assistance of our mediation and conciliation service. These included Canada Post, Great Lakes Shipping, and certain bargaining units in the broadcasting and telecommunications industries.
[Translation]
The dispute at the Port of Montreal, which I know is of deep concern to many members of the House, is taking some time to resolve. But operations have resumed and I'm advised that, with the help of special mediator Pierre Dufresne, progress towards a settlement is continuing.
In the federal jurisdiction governed by the Canada Labour Code, some 95 percent of all collective bargaining disputes are resolved without a work stoppage. When a third party is needed and the Mediation and Conciliation Service intervenes, about 90 percent of disputes are settled without a stoppage.
I think it is fair to conclude that the system of industrial relations set up by the Canada Labour Code is, on the whole, working very well.
.1550
In addition to its dispute resolution work, the Mediation and Conciliation Service offers a Preventive Mediation Program. I think it is very important for us to have this service as part of the Labour Program.
This service is provided to unions and managements on a voluntary basis during the term of collective agreements. It is designed to help the parties build and maintain constructive relationships, and to enable them to adopt voluntarily a problem-solving rather than a confrontational approach.
Preventive mediation consists of several components including training in interest-based bargaining, committee effectiveness training, grievance mediation, and assistance with the formation of a labour-management committee.
By availing themselves of this service, trade unionists and managers can improve their communication, deal with issues before they escalate, and create a less volatile atmosphere in negotiations.
[English]
Another relatively new activity has emerged for the labour program as a result of the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation. The objective of this agreement is to encourage cooperation on labour issues in North America and to ensure effective enforcement of labour laws by Canada, the United States, and Mexico. A national administrative office has been set up within the labour program. It is responsible for the implementation of the agreement in this country. It also coordinates Canadian labour, business, and government involvement in the cooperative work program with Mexico and the United States.
Last month I had the pleasure of hosting the annual meeting of the council of the Commission for Labour Cooperation, which also includes U.S. Labour Secretary Robert Reich and his Mexican counterpart, Mr. Santiago Onate. The meeting provided a useful opportunity to discuss labour issues and trends, including the impact of trade liberalization on the workplace, with my counterparts from the U.S. and Mexico. We are very active in the cooperative work program and recently participated in a major conference in Alberta on the petrochemical industry.
I am pleased that a Canadian, John McKennirey, has been named executive director of the secretariat of the labour commission, whose office is located in Dallas, Texas.
[Translation]
Another very important initiative is the Occupational Safety and Health Harmonization Project we are carrying out with the provinces. This is a tripartite initiative, involving all 13 jurisdictions and representatives from business and labour. It is aimed at achieving greater harmonization of regulations and legislation across Canada.
I believe that, by reducing duplication of effort and promoting a degree of legislative uniformity across Canada, efficiencies can be gained and resources saved while reinforcing the occupational safety and health protection we provide for our workers.
At the present time, two pilot projects relating to the harmonization of occupational safety and health regulations for diving operations and confined spaces are in place. A third issue - the regulation of workplace ergonomics - is being discussed as another potential opportunity for harmonization.
I'm also happy to announce that the remaining provisions of Part II of the Status of the Artist Act have come into force. Part II is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour and establishes a legal framework for professional artists who are engaged as independent contractors in the federal jurisdiction.
[English]
I want to refer briefly to our Labour Program Review, which is a component of the larger Human Resources Development Canada review. In keeping with the need for government to tighten its belt and sharpen its focus, the Labour Program will reduce its operating and contributions budget by over $2 million from a 1994-95 base of about $64 million.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, our Labour Program has been asked to make a considerable effort as part of the general fiscal rationalization. Likewise we are asking the same of organizations that come under the Minister of Labour, and more particularly, the Canada Labour Relations Board and the Occupational Health and Safety Board.
.1555
The artists' tribunal has just begun its activities, but both organizations and the Labour Program have had to undergo significant cutbacks and this requires the involvement and participation of all our partners. I know that they will rise to the occasion.
Turning now to the question of substantive priorities, I can tell you that, over the coming year, the Labour Program will be continuing its review of the Canada Labour Code in consultation with labour and business representatives and other interested parties.
This was announced in November by Industry Minister Manley in his document Building a More Innovative Economy. Part I of the Code, which deals with industrial relations issues, is being examined with a view to modernizing and improving it to better reflect today's realities.
Some complex and difficult issues are being addressed such as the use of replacement workers and the resolution of disputes in essential services. These are highly contentious matters and it will not be easy to satisfy everybody. However you can be assured that the views of all concerned, as well as the recommendations of the Industrial Inquiry Commission on B.C. ports that I referred to earlier, will be given full consideration before amendments are presented to Parliament.
Part II of the Code, which addresses occupational safety and health issues, is also being examined in consultation with business and labour representatives. Some changes under consideration have to do with providing the workplace partners with greater authority and responsibility for dealing with safety and health problems. It is they, after all, who have first-hand knowledge of the needs and problems of the workplace.
With regard to Part III of the Code, the section that deals with labour standards, business and labour representatives are being consulted on the feasibility of some of the proposals of the Advisory Group on Working Time and the Distribution of Work, better known under the name of the Donner Taskforce. These proposals are related to hours of work, overtime, benefits for part-time workers, family leave, and education and training.
Thus far, the labour and business representatives and others with whom we have consulted have participated in the review with vigour and dedication. They too have seen the need to update the Code and have generously shared their experience, knowledge and time. I am grateful for their contributions.
I feel confident that what we eventually present to Parliament will be seen as an appropriate, sensible and even-handed response to today's workplace realities.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and the Committee in the year ahead. We are ready to answer your questions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Madam Minister. As usual we'll begin with the Official Opposition. Ms Lalonde.
Ms Lalonde (Mercier): Although I have a terrible case of the flu, I'll still attempt to obtain answers to my questions. I feel I have no choice but to make some brief comments on the Minister's preamble. I told her quite forcefully that I found it very unfortunate that she began her job as Minister of Labour by imposing back-to-work legislation in the railway strike by invoking section 12, which I consider to be quite incompatible with the role of a Minister of Labour.
I have a number of preliminary questions before I start dealing with matters of policy. I've seen the organizational chart of Human Resources Development Canada. What is your view of the role and the importance of the department?
.1600
According to the organizational chart I have before me, and I suppose it's the official one, all the deputy ministers come under the Minister of Human Resources Development, with the Minister of Labour and the Secretary of State for Training and Youth being simply appendages. It seems to me this warrants some explanation.
Ms Robillard: When I was appointed Minister of Labour, it was quite clear that the administrative structure of the Department of Human Resources Development would not be changed. So the organizational chart sets out the main responsibilities of the large entity making up Human Resources Development Canada.
Within the Department there is an Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for the Labour program and an entire team who deals specifically with the labour aspect. My responsibilities are therefore all matters concerning labour as such.
Ms Lalonde: I'm sorry but the organizational chart shows that the deputy minister for labour comes under Minister Axworthy and not the Minister of Labour. This chart is dated April 6, 1995. It seems to me that something should be clarified here or we can draw our own conclusions.
Ms Robillard: There's nothing to be clarified. I've just said that we decided that we wouldn't change the administrative structure of the Department. So there is a deputy minister as well as assistant deputy ministers responsible for various sectors. There is an assistant deputy minister for Labour who, as would be expected, reports to the deputy minister but this in no way prevents the assistant deputy minister for Labour from dealing directly with the Minister of Labour.
Ms Lalonde: I don't see how you can say that. In any case I don't intend to waste my time. I'm sorry. For goodness' sake, Mr. Chairman...
Mr. Cauchon (Outremont): You have the Minister before you. Ask her questions about the budget. It will be far more interesting and constructive than playing around with details.
The Chairman: Mr. Cauchon, order please.
Mr. Cauchon: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: We'll give Ms Lalonde the time to ask her questions.
Ms Lalonde: I'm sorry but I can't accept that, Mr. Chairman. It's a serious question, for the Minister as well.
Turning to another matter, in your estimates on page 38 in the French text, the budget is set at $103 million. Expecting to see the same figures, I looked at the three-year spending profile and noticed that the figure was not the same. I'd like an explanation.
[English]
Mr. David Good (Assistant Deputy Minister, Finance and Administration, Department of Labour): The discrepancy you are indicating is not a discrepancy. What you see in the outlook document are funds that have been provided - In the document to which you referred, the $103,688 is the devoted appropriation for the department for 1995-96. What you see in the outlook document is a grossed-up figure that includes certain portions that are recoverable from the UI account and are reflected in the grossed-up amount. It's the difference then between the devoted amount which is the $103,688 and the grossed-up amount.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: That isn't the usual practice.
I'll now come to my first question of substance, Madam Minister. You refer to the review of the Canada Labour Code. I have three questions on that point. First of all, when will the work be completed?
.1605
Secondly, you make no reference to legislation preventing strikebreaking and an anti-scab provision of the Code. There's a serious conflict that has been going on for a long time now in Montreal and it requires anti-scab legislation. We as well as the workers have repeatedly asked you whether as part of this overall review of the Code you would take the time to table legislation to prevent employers from hiring strikebreakers.
Third, do you not think it would be appropriate to have this review done by a group rather than by a single deputy minister?
Ms Robillard: The two questions relate to the review of the Canada Labour Code. One of them deals more specifically with the conflict taking place at the Ogilvie Mills or ADM Agri-Industries, if you prefer.
This conflict has been going on for almost a year now in Montreal. As you know, the present Code does contain measures to help the parties involved and certain changes could be made to the Code.
Our present aim in this conflict is to assist the parties to come to an agreement so that the striking workers can go back to work. Whatever means we use, there must some agreement on our objective, namely to have an agreement and enable the workers to return to work.
I've had talks with the workers and the local unions and they have agreed to return to the mediation table, in other words to make use of the tools provided in the present Code. A mediation session took place on the first and second of May and the parties agreed to have another mediation meeting next May 25 and 26. I hope that this mediation will be successful. As you know, there is one taking place in the Port of Montreal and it is working well at the present time. So the parties, including the local union, have agreed to continue to make use of the instruments provided in the present Code, that is the assistance of a mediator to come to an agreement.
The second question relating to this conflict is whether it's possible to change elements in the present Code. That is a far more general question and relates to the two other questions raised by the member, namely the review of the Code.
The review of Part I of the Code is underway. I would like this to be a comprehensive review. I would rather not have it be limited to the matter of replacement workers or essential services; I would prefer a complete review of Part I of the Code since this has not been done for the past 25 years and many changes have taken place since then. Consultations are continuing at the present time, both with employers and union representatives on all elements of Part I of the Code.
The assistant deputy minister in charge of this consultation, Mr. McDermott, has targetted three specific matters in these consultations. The first relates to the mandate and the structure of the Canada Labour Relations Board and the second concerns the conciliation stages as provided for in the Code. The third relates to replacement workers and essential services.
.1610
Besides those three questions, I'd also like us to look at other items in the Code. Mr. McDermott is supposed to have finished his review of the Code and his consultations within the next few weeks. I expect he'll report to me early in June and in light of the results of this consultation I'll see what comes next in the process. That's why, in my introduction, I indicated that the review of Parts I and II of the Code would be the priority next year.
After I've seen my ADM's report, I'll see if we have to broaden that and whether it would be useful to have people from the outside give extra clarification in reviewing the Code.
Ms Lalonde: About Ogilvie, I can easily understand that the workers don't have a choice and they might even be happy that there were a few mediation sessions. However, Madam Minister, you will agree that labour relations depend on the relative strength of the parties. The whole history of labour relations, and it is also the history of the Code, has led to the codification, after many hard battles for all parties concerned, of items confirmed by legislation which guarantee a relative balance between the forces involved. Even though strike action is not often used, it remains the ultimate recourse. When it's impossible to strike because of scabs, the power struggle is such that the workers cannot come to a quick settlement in less unfortunate circumstances.
You know the story at Ogilvie's. They are being asked to let go of just about everything they ever gained. Besides, I should remind you - and I'm happy to do so here - that Premier Bourassa, before he was elected in 1985, had been asked by the Conseil du patronat to get rid of the anti-scab provisions and he had mentioned the possibility but did not actually do it once he was elected.
That was very clear even in an interview in the Journal des affaires. I was teaching at that time and I understood why he wasn't doing it because, as he said, that anti-scab law had resulted in social peace and quiet. It brought about social peace and quiet because it guaranteed an orderly power struggle in the workplace. It seems to me we can't wait for a review of the whole Code which, in any case...
An hon. member: [Inaudible]
Ms Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, is there any procedure allowing a member to ask that a member of another party please exit the room? There are limits to the harassment you can take. I'm explaining my point of view to the Minister.
Mr. Cauchon: We all know the story.
The Chairman: Order, please.
Mr. Cauchon: Fine, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Please continue, Mrs. Lalonde.
Mr. Cauchon: I don't give a tinker's...
Ms Lalonde: No, I know that for you nothing is worth a tinker's...
Mr. Cauchon: It's all water over the tinker's dam. Please go on.
Ms Lalonde: In Canada, according to the department's report, on page 3-21, you can see that the total of days lost in this way represents only 0.1% of all days lost under federal jurisdiction. It's a fact that in most cases, negotiations are completed without resorting to mediation.
.1615
So, I was saying it would desirable for Canada to have an anti-scab provision, and we need one without delay for the Ogilvie workers who are in a situation where there's a double standard.
I'd also like you to tell me why deputy minister McDermott was given the job, on his own, of making recommendations for changes that are not global. From what you've told me, there are three elements in there.
Ms Robillard: As for the conflict at Ogilvie's, the objective is to get the workers back to work. Right now, in the Code, there are tools that can still be used. I told you about mediation before. That's one. Another one of the Code's tools that has not yet been used to maximum effect in this conflict is the provision allowing a complaint to be laid before the Canada Labour Relations Board.
I'd like to tell the members of the committee, if they don't know this already, that the union side had asked my predecessor for permission to lay a complaint before the Canada Labour Relations Board because the management side was acting in bad faith during the negotiations and Minister Axworthy had acceded to this request. So a complaint was laid before the Canada Labour Relations Board. When the Board set dates for the hearings, the union side, for its own reasons, decided to delay the process and not appear immediately, not go to the hearings, and asked for the hearings to be deferred.
I'm mentioning this just to tell you that all the provisions in the present Code have not yet been used to their fullest extent in this conflict.
That said, I understand full well that there's a wish to debate the question of replacement workers and I think that must be done. Not only should there be a debate about replacement workers, but also about essential services. As you know, in the Code, essential services are not spelled out and over the last few years new federal jurisdictions have been appearing, where, in my opinion, essential services need to be identified. For example, you have the fire-fighting services at airports and other serives as well. We'll certainly have to look at essential services.
Then again, when you start looking at the Code, you can see that the minute you touch one of the provisions of the Code there's a link with another part of the Code. And that will be all the more important if we want to review the structure and mandate of the CLRB. So if we want a consistent and comprehensive approach, when we touch one of the provisions, we have to find out what the link is with the other provisions in the Code. So it's important to review the Code as a whole.
Three elements were emphasized during consultations by the deputy minister but the deputy minister, during these consultations, clearly indicated to the parties who were consulted that they could avail themselves of other provisions of the Code. That was said during consultation.
Why should this revision of the Code be handled by a single deputy minister and not by a group of other people? I'm still open on that, but once again, I'm going to wait for the deputy minister's report, which I expect within the next few weeks, and I'll then make a decision on the process that will follow the tabling of the report.
The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister. We will now go to the Reform Party.
[English]
Mr. Johnston, would you like to continue the questioning?
Mr. Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon, Madam Minister.
I'd like to talk about the artists tribunal. In 1993, of course, the former government delayed the proclamation of the sections that would deal with the operations of the tribunal because of ``the expense in a cost-cutting era.'' Of course the minister has referred to the need for belt-tightening and cost-cutting again in this document, and yet we learn that the provisions that would enable this tribunal to operate were only proclaimed yesterday.
.1620
My question for the minister is, how wise is it to spend $1.7 million on a tribunal of this type when we have to make cutbacks in the areas of post-secondary education and transfers to health and welfare?
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: Mr. Chairman, as we know, Parliament passed a law on the status of artists. There are legitimately elected members of Parliament who voted in favor of that legislation. That legislation has two parts, one of which concerns the artists' tribunal.
We are well aware of the financial implications, but I think that when this legislation was passed, a will to implement all provisions of the Act was clearly expressed, as the cultural community demanded. Artists are independent workers who must be heard in the matter of their working conditions. So we went ahead with that tribunal and implemented those provisions of the legislation setting up that tribunal.
On the other hand, I can assure the member of the Reform Party that we are doing our best to keep this tribunal's budget as low as possible. You'll have the opportunity of hearing its chair. I think she'll be able to go even further. She has contacts with other organizations. Perhaps there might be administrative exchanges with other labour relations boards so as not to increase costs. In my opinion, this budget is reasonable in light of this tribunal's duties.
[English]
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I object to this sort of spending to set up what basically is a closed shop, particularly in a time of extreme fiscal restraint. I think maybe the minister did not touch on the fact that although having been passed back in 1993, the provisions in this act that would enable this tribunal to be set up were only proclaimed into law yesterday, and the minister didn't respond to that in any way, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: Why wait to proclaim these...
[English]
Mr. Johnston: My question is, yes, why is it that this happened to be proclaimed into law just yesterday when we have this paper presented to us today? Is the timing significant?
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: Mr. Chairman, when I took on these duties on the 22nd of February of this year, I was made aware of this legislation which had been passed by Parliament and of the fact that the government had already appointed the chair of this tribunal. I could see that this tribunal would not have whatever was necessary for it to play its role if other members were not appointed and if the provisions of the legislation applying to the tribunal were not implemented.
My first step was to appoint a vice-chair and two members because the legislation allows for a vice-chair and two to four members. I believe the appointments of the vice-chair and the two members were made on the first of March and I then asked for regulations to be drawn up to implement the provisions of the Act.
.1625
The process was followed and it had nothing to do with the fact that this committee was meeting today. Even if today's committee meeting had not occurred, the provisions of the Act would have been implemented.
[English]
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the minister has pointed out that she has come up with an industrial inquiry commission on B.C. ports. That's on page 4 of the minister's report, today.
When we were debating Bill C-77 in the House - that's the back-to-work railways legislation - the minister at that time promised a commission of inquiry that would review the collective agreement structure, and I assumed at that time that it would be specific to railroads.
Is this industrial inquiry commission of B.C. ports specific only to the ports, or does it also include the railroads? This can be found in the second-last paragraph on page 4 of the minister's report.
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: We discussed those items in Parliament when back-to-work legislation was passed for the West Coast ports. We all know that all the West Coast ports had been shut down and we had to pass legislation for that. At that point, I announced a commission of inquiry on the structure and collective bargaining in the West Coast ports because Parliament is regularly called upon to pass legislation.
On the other hand, when we looked at the situation a bit more closely with a view to appointing that commission of inquiry, we saw that longshoring activities on the West Coast were tied into the grain-handling industry and other sectors. These activities are integrated and interlinked and the industrial inquiry commission has been given a broadened mandate. It can take those other sectors into account in making its recommendations.
[English]
Mr. Johnston: For clarification, Mr. Chairman, this industrial inquiry does include the railway -
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: I'm sorry, I forgot to answer that part of the question, Mr. Chairman. At the present time, as you know, there are adjudication committees sitting and we couldn't include them in this industrial inquiry commission's mandate. We already have mediation and arbitration committees. So, no, they're not included in this inquiry.
[English]
Mr. Johnston: If you explained why not, I didn't catch the reason they wouldn't be included in that, because we've had so many disruptions in railway service. It occurs to me that the railways and their employees have gotten to the point where they depend on back-to-work legislation, and the gap is often so great in their negotiations that it's obvious they are either going to walk off the job or be locked out and then depend on being legislated back to work.
So I'm wondering what the minister's rationale is in not looking at this problem with the railways, particularly since it was promised when we were discussing this in the House. If it's not going to be included in this, does that mean there will have to be a separate inquiry forthcoming and a separate budget for that?
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: Let's remember there were two conflicts. The first one was about the West Coast ports and the second one was about the railways. When I announced the commission of inquiry, it was on the West Coast ports. So the industrial inquiry commission is starting out with these West Coast ports, but at the same time you have the whole problem of the grain-handling industry and other sectors too. All this is going on strictly in the western part of the country. So the inquiry commission's mandate is specifically targetted.
The railways are national and cover the whole country. I'm quite aware that we had to pass legislation for them. That wasn't always the case in the railway sector, mind you.
.1630
I too am concerned by national railway strikes. As to improvements to be brought in to avoid such situations in future, I do not intend to appoint a commission of inquiry to look into railways. Rather, I am counting on the review of Part I of the Code to provide us with some fledgling solutions which will allow us to avoid such national conflicts.
[English]
The Chairman: Is that clear now, Mr. Johnston?
Mr. Johnston: Not entirely, but maybe we'll move on to something else.
We do have a report somewhere on the inquiry on the railroads, and that is the Fraser report. Of course one should never assume anything, but I assume this report is finished. When do you suppose we're going to see this? Perhaps the minister could just give us an update on the status of the Fraser report.
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: I don't have Mr. Fraser's report yet, but I hope I'll be getting it as soon as possible. I asked for the report to be delivered as soon as possible. So I hope that we'll be getting it within the next few weeks.
[English]
Mr. Johnston: I certainly would be interested in seeing that report.
In March when we were legislating the railways and the west coast port workers back to work, the Reform Party put forth a motion that would provide for final-offer arbitration. Does the minister agree that this sort of tool would be useful to both labour and management in those cases, and is the minister considering anything along those lines?
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: The final offer mechanism can be interesting in some cases and deserves closer study, but it certainly can't be used in very complicated situations where many elements are in play.
I'm thinking of a labour conflict where it was very easy to use the final offer situation. It was strictly a misundertanding or a lack of consensus on a salary increase. You have to decide whether it's $1.30 or $1.60, for example. It's simple enough. That did happen in one labour relations case. But when you're faced with very complex issues like you have with the canadian railways, the question does deserve to be examined. I can say that at first glance, I'd find it very difficult to use that mechanism to arrive at a satisfactory resolution for both parties.
The final offer mechanism will certainly be put on the table during the discussions on the revision of Part I of the Code.
[English]
Mr. Johnston: I'm pleased to hear that, Mr. Chairman, because I think it is a very useful tool. It's not necessarily something that's being imposed on anyone, and it shouldn't be viewed as such.
It's interesting to note that as a result of the railroads being legislated back to work, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees have reached an agreement with their employer regarding their job security. I'm sure that's one of the complex situations the minister was referring to. I think knowing that tool is there is a great advantage to both employer and employee, knowing that one or the other of them could call for it at any time. The fact that these two parties did reach an agreement just recently is proof that it probably would help.
.1635
Actually, the government has commissioned several studies over the last year, but I don't see any place in the estimates here where we have a breakdown of the cost of these studies. Could the Minister provide that for us?
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: Which studies are being referred to, Mr. Chairman? I'm prepared to give the honourable member all the information he needs if he would just give us more details about the studies to which he's referring. You're asking about the cost of the studies?
[English]
Mr. Johnston: Specifically the Fraser study, for one, and any and all studies that have taken place. I'm not particular; I'd just like to know what the average cost of these studies is or what a specific study cost the Canadian taxpayer. I don't seem to be able to locate that information.
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: If the question is on the Fraser report, I should point out that it has not yet been presented. I cannot tell Committee members what the final cost was, but as soon as the report is presented, we will be able to provide this information.
If your question covers other studies that have been completed, we can provide you with that information with no problem whatsoever.
[English]
The Chairman: Perhaps, Mr. Johnston, you'd like to let the chair know specifically what studies you would like to know the cost of. We will communicate with the minister's department and have those costs produced for the committee.
Mr. Johnston: I'd appreciate that.
What is the rationale, Madam Minister, for the increase of $580,000 in the labour standards and equity of pay operations? That would be found on page 3.27.
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: I will ask Mr. Lahey to answer the question, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Mr. James Lahey (Assistant Deputy Minister, Labour, Department of Labour): I don't know the answer to that specific question. It's possible that one of my colleagues does if she's here. Could we provide that information to you in writing in the next day or so?
Mr. Johnston: Sure.
I notice also that there is an increase of some $2.3 million for the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation in the last year. You did touch on the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation in your report. Is this necessary because of the North American Free Trade Agreement? If so, are NAFTA partners contributing to any of this or are they contributing a similar amount?
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: Mr. Lahey will answer the question.
[English]
Mr. Lahey: This one I can answer, I'm pleased to say. The North American Commission on Labour Cooperation came into effect theoretically with the adoption of NAFTA on January 1, 1994. But the secretariat, for example, is just being established now in Dallas and the joint co-operative program really got started in the course of 1994. So this funding is Canada's share of a program that we share with the other two countries.
I can assure you that all three countries are very careful to give exactly the same amount of money to the secretariat.
So far each of the three countries has forwarded to the secretariat an amount of $400,000 U.S. for the secretariat's operations. There will probably be an amount of approximately $700,000 U.S. in the course of 1995. So it's possible that the amount that's shown there in the estimates will not all be spent. We'll be limiting ourself to what the other two parties put in. It's very much an even-steven sort of arrangement.
.1640
The Chairman: If I might just piggyback on this question, you're saying that the costs of the commission are borne equally by the three countries?
Mr. Lahey: That's correct.
The Chairman: They're not in proportion to volume of trade or anything else?
Mr. Lahey: No. The arrangement was that the only fair way to do it was that all three countries should pay equally. One country happens to be much larger than the others. I think there was a feeling that it might exercise an undue influence in the secretariat if the amounts were not equal.
The Chairman: That's good. Thank you.
Is that sufficient? We can come back to you, Mr. Johnston, if we have any time left.
I will now turn to the Liberals.
[Translation]
Would you care to begin, Mr. Cauchon?
Mr. Cauchon: I would like to thank you very much, Minister, for your brief and for the time you've taken to appear before us. Thank you also for taking part in this democratic exercise whereby we can ask you questions about your department.
You have explained what the reform of the Canada Labour Code will entail. You also described the objectives of Part I. Personally, I'm more interested in Part II. If I understand correctly, Part II covers occupational health and safety.
I imagine that over the years, our legislation has become outdated. I would like to know what the objectives of the reform are. What will be the impact on the work world? Finally, Minister, as you know, the whole area of occupational health and safety involves a host of acts and regulations in Canada. A number of stakeholders are also involved. What process do you intend to put in place to try to find a consensus among all these organizations, legislations and individuals?
Ms Robillard: This question is very much to the point, since it relates to the health and safety of workers. I think the issue as such is a very important one. There is an on-going, almost permanent consultation process with both management and unions on Parts II and III of the Canada Labour Code. I think that is necessary. At the moment, all parties involved are satisfied with the consultation procedures.
So we do have consultation procedures in place at the moment for Part II. It is a tripartite consultation process involving officials from the Labour Program of the department, and union and management representatives. This committee studies a wide range of issues - close to 200 projects. The committee members have reached consensus on two thirds of the project. That is why I have announced that in 1996, we may be able to make some amendments to Part II of the Labour Code, because the parties have been reaching consensus on a number of issues.
I will not, however, go into detail on all of these projects. I think there are three major issues under Part II. There are the joint occupational health and safety committees in workplaces. Second, there are the appeal processes set out in our Code, which are being reviewed. And finally, there is the right to refuse to work.
These three issues are now being examined by our advisory group. Under the first, relating to the joint occupational health and safety committee, we are attempting to determine whether we could give more responsibility, under the Labour Code, to the internal committees already present in workplaces. That is the matter that's being considered. We are trying to give these workplace committees more responsibility.
.1645
The committee will be proposing an appeal process if it reaches a consensus. The committee members are trying to come up with a process that is genuinely fair, and readily accessible.
The third issue is the right to refuse to work. As you know, in dangerous situations, there is the right to refuse to work. How is the word "dangerous" defined? When can workers refuse to work?
So these are the three main issues being reviewed by the tripartite committee. This is a consultation mechanism that is working well at the moment and is managing to achieve consensus. Negotiations on labour relations are not always easy, and it may be more difficult to reach consensus on Part I. However, I must tell you that I'm very satisfied with current developments as regards Part II of the Code, on occupational health and safety.
Mr. Cauchon: Does the Canada Labour Code already provide for the right to refuse to work for safety reasons?
Ms Robillard: Yes, it's the right to refuse to work.
Mr. Cauchon: I suppose you would just have to state the section numbers.
I'd like to know whether the labour process provided for in NAFTA has been activated. Is this a process that flows out of the North American Free Trade Agreement? I would also like to know the status of the negotiations. What points are you trying to standardize within the North American context?
At one point, there was talk of setting up a labour secretariat in Dallas, I believe. How is this progressing? Will the secretariat soon be a reality?
Ms Robillard: Yes, the secretariat is already in place, and is located in Dallas, Texas. In my opening remarks, I mentioned that we were very pleased that the first executive director of the secretatiat is a Canadian, Mr. McKennirey. He is completing the process of hiring staff for the secretariat. The three countries suggested possible candidates for staff positions. So this project has not been put on the back burner. Rather, the secretariat will officially begin operations in July of this year.
The first part of your question concerned a labour agreement arising out of... That is a very interesting point because at the meeting in April this year, my counterparts from the other two countries, Mr. Reich and Mr. Onate, and I discussed the creation of a co-operative program to see how the three countries could foster co-operation in the area of labour relations and ensure efficient implementation of NAFTA.
I can tell you that in the past year, a number of activities have been carried out under this co-operative program. Since the three countries have different approaches to labour relations, I should say that the challenge is considerable. I think the developments that have occured in just one year are quite satisfactory... The three ministers are to meet annually to look at the progress achieved during the year and to determine the agenda for the following year.
.1650
I must tell you that the parties have come closer in some areas. There have been many discussions. This is encouraging, even though there are still some outstanding problems.
In Canada, as you know, the provinces must necessarily be part of the agreement in order for us to play our role fully in this regard.
A number of provinces have taken part in the activities carried out under the co-operation program. They must make an official commitment and sign to indicate that they are parties to the negotiations. Once they've done that, they will attend these co-operation meetings.
I have been told that Alberta is on the point of signing the agreement, and that the issue is being discussed by a parliamentary committee in Quebec. I believe it is the Quebec Committee on Institutions that is studying this matter.
We hope that in the months ahead, the provinces will become official parties to the agreement and will participate in the commission with us.
Mr. Cauchon: You mentioned, Minister, that legislation in the three countries varied widely. I assume, given that, that it will be difficult to get the negotiations under way.
What will be your priorities for the initial negotiations?
Ms Robillard: We've been looking at this over the last year, and we will continue to do so next year. We are looking very closely at occupational health and safety. It is one of the important considerations.
Second, we would like to compare our labour relations systems to determine where common ground can be found.
The three countries maintain labour relations statistics differently, and it is difficult to compare the information. For example, even statistics on the unemployment rate are not calculated in the same way.
Our secretariat has been given a very clear mandate to try to find some common tools to measure labour relations components and to see where there is some possible common ground. So that is the approach that has been taken.
I don't know whether Mr. Lahey would like to add something.
Mr. Lahey: Just one point. The purpose of the exercise is not to harmonize the three countries' provisions, because the systems are quite different. Rather, we are trying to insure that existing legislation is implemented efficiently. That is one of the objectives of the agreement.
The idea is also to share experiences, to discuss what is working well and what is not. In the long term, this type of discussion could have an impact on the way the legislation develops in these three countries. Our objective is not to harmonize the legislation of the three countries involved.
Ms Robillard: The focus is more on co-operation.
Mr. Lahey: Exactly.
Mr. Cauchon: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cauchon.
[English]
I now turn the questioning over to Andy Scott.
Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I've just two areas I'll touch on quickly. One has to do with work time.
You mentioned in your opening comments, Madam Minister, that business and labour representatives are being consulted on the feasibility of some of the proposals in the Donner report. I am curious about what proposals are being considered, the process that's being employed in that exercise, and any sense of timing you could give us for that exercise.
Then very specifically, a couple of the recommendations of the report have to do with the relationship between the government and its own employees in terms of leadership in the area of work sharing and so on. Has anything happened with the process we're going through right now in the public service that would link with that exercise?
.1655
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: That's a very good question, Mr. Chairman. I would in fact say that it goes beyond the responsibilities of the Minister of Labour. We should remember that the Donner Report analyzed the issues of hours of work and distribution of work.
Unless committee members have a different opinion, I would say that the report was not directed just to the Minister of Labour of Canada, but also to the entire federal government and provincial governments. Quite rightly, the members of the committee would like their report to give rise to a public debate on this issue.
Within the Labour Program, we have discussed the possible follow-up to the report in our various areas of responsibility. I trust my colleagues in the provinces are doing likewise. If we were to make changes on the basis of this new reality, we should do so in concert with the provinces, so that any initiative will affect all Canadian workers.
Since the Labour Program within the Department of Human Resources Development is also facing budget cuts, we intend to set up some pilot projects to see whether some innovative approaches to the issue of hours of work can be devised.
We also want a debate with our partners in the labour market. That is why we have asked our advisory group on Part III of the Labour Code to study the report and take a stand on a number of issues. This could result in amendments to the Code on the number of hours of work - I'm thinking of the recommendation regarding a 40-hour work week - and the limit on overtime.
So we are starting by setting up pilot projects within the Labour Program in these areas. Second, we would like our tripartit advisory group to review all of the recommendations. Third, we want to stimulate public debate on the issue. We have asked various advisory groups such as the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Center and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board to look at these issues, because the debate must involve all parties concerned.
The Chairman: I have just been told that we have to leave immediately to vote.
Ms Robillard: Will we be coming back, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Is the Minister available to come back?
Ms Robillard: The decision is yours, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I'm prepared to come back for 15 or 20 minutes, if committee members...
Mr. Cauchon: Send in your questions in writing.
The Chairman: The officials will be here tomorrow at 10 a.m.
.1700
[English]
We have to go. By the time we get back here, it will be sufficiently distracted. I'm going to take the executive decision and adjourn for today. We'll have the officials here tomorrow. The questions can be adked of the them then, in written form if necessary.
I adjourn the meeting.